Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Get On Up (2014) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Thoughts on Get on Up
Characters – James Brown is one of the most influential musicians of the last century, there is no doubt what he did will live on forever. We get to see how James started with nothing, in an abusive childhood with no education, before learning to take the chances thrown his way, trying to make a difference to the world in the spotlight, even if he doesn’t always keep the crowd around him, not always as loyal as he should be. This doesn’t make James look like the most integral person behind the spotlight. Bobby Byrd is the man that gave James a chance to get out of prison, to start something with his singing in gospel, he will stand by James through all the troubles he faces, the bands he goes through, knowing James is the main talent and just being part of this would make him remembered. Ben Bart makes everything happen for James, he tries to help him navigate difficult moments in history, but will help him make the right choices which sees the friendship grow as the success does. Susie is the mother of James, she is forced to leave because of her partner and once he becomes famous wants to come back into his life, while James isn’t willing to let this happen.
Performances – Chadwick Boseman is fantastic in the leading role, he shows that his biopic man, he can bring James Brown to life on stage and in his personal life with ease. Nelsan Ellis is great in his role, showing us that he could provide excellent supporting performances in the film. Dan Aykroyd is strong too, with Viola Davis making a big impact in her scenes in the film.
Story – The story here follows the life of James Brown, from his poverty like childhood, to his international success in the music industry, we see his ideas on wanting to make a change and just what it will do to the people that helped him get to the top. One of the biggest weaknesses in the film here comes from the early time jumps, we are constantly jumping between moments, which doesn’t help the story telling process. This story also doesn’t paint James as a nice person away from the spotlight, even if he was always trying to achieve something more from his career. The story does try to ram too much into the film, which does make it hard to understand each moment of his life.
Biopic/Music – This does show a lot of his life, it doesn’t help us get invested in just how much of an impact each moment was. The music can’t be questioned with his hits playing through the film with every beat we know.
Settings – The film creates some of the biggest stages of James career, never looking like we aren’t in the correct time period.
Scene of the Movie – The performances.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The time jumps.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book biopic, it has wonderful performances and the music you would expect to see, though we do cram too much in for everything to run smoothly.
Overall: By the Books Biopic.
Characters – James Brown is one of the most influential musicians of the last century, there is no doubt what he did will live on forever. We get to see how James started with nothing, in an abusive childhood with no education, before learning to take the chances thrown his way, trying to make a difference to the world in the spotlight, even if he doesn’t always keep the crowd around him, not always as loyal as he should be. This doesn’t make James look like the most integral person behind the spotlight. Bobby Byrd is the man that gave James a chance to get out of prison, to start something with his singing in gospel, he will stand by James through all the troubles he faces, the bands he goes through, knowing James is the main talent and just being part of this would make him remembered. Ben Bart makes everything happen for James, he tries to help him navigate difficult moments in history, but will help him make the right choices which sees the friendship grow as the success does. Susie is the mother of James, she is forced to leave because of her partner and once he becomes famous wants to come back into his life, while James isn’t willing to let this happen.
Performances – Chadwick Boseman is fantastic in the leading role, he shows that his biopic man, he can bring James Brown to life on stage and in his personal life with ease. Nelsan Ellis is great in his role, showing us that he could provide excellent supporting performances in the film. Dan Aykroyd is strong too, with Viola Davis making a big impact in her scenes in the film.
Story – The story here follows the life of James Brown, from his poverty like childhood, to his international success in the music industry, we see his ideas on wanting to make a change and just what it will do to the people that helped him get to the top. One of the biggest weaknesses in the film here comes from the early time jumps, we are constantly jumping between moments, which doesn’t help the story telling process. This story also doesn’t paint James as a nice person away from the spotlight, even if he was always trying to achieve something more from his career. The story does try to ram too much into the film, which does make it hard to understand each moment of his life.
Biopic/Music – This does show a lot of his life, it doesn’t help us get invested in just how much of an impact each moment was. The music can’t be questioned with his hits playing through the film with every beat we know.
Settings – The film creates some of the biggest stages of James career, never looking like we aren’t in the correct time period.
Scene of the Movie – The performances.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The time jumps.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book biopic, it has wonderful performances and the music you would expect to see, though we do cram too much in for everything to run smoothly.
Overall: By the Books Biopic.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Neighbor in Books
Apr 13, 2021
I can not get enough of London Clarke's books. I have not read a bad one yet, so when I saw that she had released a new book entitled The Neighbor, I knew I had to read it. To say I was blown away is an understatement. The Neighbor has now become my favorite London Clarke book so far.
The plot of The Neighbor was definitely frightening. However, I could not put this book down. I kept trying to find opportunities when I had free time to read it. I was terrified for Claire and her four girls. I found myself wanting to protect them from whatever evil had invaded their house. I loved how the supernatural element of the story did not feel forced or cheesy. It was very believable so much so that I kept having to check for shadows as I read this book! The pacing was done perfectly. Although there are some parts of the story that are a bit predictable with how they will play out, I felt that it didn't take away from the narrative at all. I will say all the demon encounters were the spookiest though! However, London Clarke writes them in a way that won't leave you too scared to continue reading. She writes them in a way that will leave you wanting to know more. By the end of the book, all loose ends had been tied up, and there were no cliff hangers.
All of the characters in The Neighbor were fleshed out perfectly even the supporting characters. I really connected with Claire the most, not because she was the main character, but because we are both mothers. While I have two boys instead of four girls, my youngest, funnily enough named Levi (if you read The Neighbor, you'll find out why I find it funny), is the same age as Claire's youngest daughter named Paris. My oldest isn't much older than Claire's oldest daughter Annalen. Plus, Claire and myself are very close in age. I was behind Claire 100 percent, and it annoyed me when her ex-husband, Gunnar, thought she was just losing her mind instead of trying to help her out. I found Clair to be a very strong female character, and I felt so much admiration for her for what she chose to go through for her girls. (I know that most parents would have done the same though.) I also felt bad for Claire that one decision is what caused this whole supernatural mess. Steel was a definitely an interesting character that I did not trust from the very beginning. He is written perfectly, and even though I didn't trust him very much, he was still fun to read about. I found myself trying to figure him out all the time! Whitney was another character that I liked but didn't trust. It was so weird how her life seemed to mimic Claire's.
Trigger warnings for The Neighbor include profanity, violence, murder, death, suicide, alcohol, pedophilia (though not graphic), sex scenes (not very graphic), demons, and the occult.
Overall, The Neighbor is one heck of a rollercoaster ride, so be sure to strap yourself in tight. With it's terrifying plot and interesting characters, this book sucks you in from the very first page and won't spit you back out until it's had its wicked way with you. This is one book that needs to be made into a movie now. I would definitely recommend The Neighbor by London Clarke to those aged 18+ who love their spooky novels with a big helping of terrifying on the side. You will not be disappointed, that's for sure!
The plot of The Neighbor was definitely frightening. However, I could not put this book down. I kept trying to find opportunities when I had free time to read it. I was terrified for Claire and her four girls. I found myself wanting to protect them from whatever evil had invaded their house. I loved how the supernatural element of the story did not feel forced or cheesy. It was very believable so much so that I kept having to check for shadows as I read this book! The pacing was done perfectly. Although there are some parts of the story that are a bit predictable with how they will play out, I felt that it didn't take away from the narrative at all. I will say all the demon encounters were the spookiest though! However, London Clarke writes them in a way that won't leave you too scared to continue reading. She writes them in a way that will leave you wanting to know more. By the end of the book, all loose ends had been tied up, and there were no cliff hangers.
All of the characters in The Neighbor were fleshed out perfectly even the supporting characters. I really connected with Claire the most, not because she was the main character, but because we are both mothers. While I have two boys instead of four girls, my youngest, funnily enough named Levi (if you read The Neighbor, you'll find out why I find it funny), is the same age as Claire's youngest daughter named Paris. My oldest isn't much older than Claire's oldest daughter Annalen. Plus, Claire and myself are very close in age. I was behind Claire 100 percent, and it annoyed me when her ex-husband, Gunnar, thought she was just losing her mind instead of trying to help her out. I found Clair to be a very strong female character, and I felt so much admiration for her for what she chose to go through for her girls. (I know that most parents would have done the same though.) I also felt bad for Claire that one decision is what caused this whole supernatural mess. Steel was a definitely an interesting character that I did not trust from the very beginning. He is written perfectly, and even though I didn't trust him very much, he was still fun to read about. I found myself trying to figure him out all the time! Whitney was another character that I liked but didn't trust. It was so weird how her life seemed to mimic Claire's.
Trigger warnings for The Neighbor include profanity, violence, murder, death, suicide, alcohol, pedophilia (though not graphic), sex scenes (not very graphic), demons, and the occult.
Overall, The Neighbor is one heck of a rollercoaster ride, so be sure to strap yourself in tight. With it's terrifying plot and interesting characters, this book sucks you in from the very first page and won't spit you back out until it's had its wicked way with you. This is one book that needs to be made into a movie now. I would definitely recommend The Neighbor by London Clarke to those aged 18+ who love their spooky novels with a big helping of terrifying on the side. You will not be disappointed, that's for sure!
Sarah (7800 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Delivers EXACTLY what is expected - and that's a good thing
If you are heading into the multi-plex to check out FAST AND FURIOUS PRESENTS: HOBBS & SHAW, the 9th(!) entry in the Fast and Furious Universe, you pretty much know (and expect) what you are about to watch.
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) in Movies
Feb 23, 2021
Kaluuya in an Oscar worthy performance
Ever since Daniel Kaluuya burst onto the scene in 2017’s GET OUT, he has been an actor to watch - one who’s brilliance bursts off the screen in whatever project he is in.
This brilliance shines brightly in his latest effort JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH that teams him up with his GET OUT co-star LaKeith Stanfield in the true story of 1960’s Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton (Kaluuya) and his friend/Security Chief, Bill O’Neal (Stanfield) who just happens to be an FBI informant.
Directed and Written by Shaka King, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH tells an important, under-told story of the African-American struggle in the wild, changing times of America in the 1960’s.
Kaluuya’s performance as Hampton is up to the challenge of a story this big and bold - his Fred Hampton is charismatic and involving, drawing all into his world. He’s a bigger-than-life icon that demands attention whenever Kaluuya/Hampton is on the stage. I expect an Oscar nomination (at least) for this performance.
The problem with this film is that Kaluuya’s Hampton is such a strong and commanding presence that the rest of the story and characters pale in comparison to him.
Such is the case with Stanfield’s portrayal of O’Neal. I really like LaKeith Stanfield as a performer and was really looking forward to seeing him and Kaluuya go toe-to-toe, but his character is swallowed up in the largess of the Hampton character and, so, I never connected or sympathized with him. I don’t blame this on the actor, I blame this on the script and the direction of King, making the O’Neal character weak - especially when he is up against Hampton.
The character/actor that WAS able to hold their own with Kaluuya/Hampton is Dominique Fishback as Hampton’s lover (and mother of his child), Deborah Johnson. The scenes of Hampton and Johnson together were sharp and interesting - perhaps because Hampton was toned down, but also because Fishback’s portrayal of Johnson was strong enough to stand up to Kaluuya’s portrayal of Hampton.
In addition, Kaluuya’s performance is so strong in this film that it is noticeable when it is absent, so when his character is sent to prison (and disappears) for the middle 1/3 of this film, the movie drags considerably.
Finally, the film hits a plateau at about the 4/5 mark and doesn’t really build to a crescendo at the end - an ending that should be powerful, but just sorts of lies there.
All-in-all, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH is worth seeing for the powerful performance by Daniel Kaluuya that more than makes up for the shortcomings of the rest of the film.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This brilliance shines brightly in his latest effort JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH that teams him up with his GET OUT co-star LaKeith Stanfield in the true story of 1960’s Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton (Kaluuya) and his friend/Security Chief, Bill O’Neal (Stanfield) who just happens to be an FBI informant.
Directed and Written by Shaka King, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH tells an important, under-told story of the African-American struggle in the wild, changing times of America in the 1960’s.
Kaluuya’s performance as Hampton is up to the challenge of a story this big and bold - his Fred Hampton is charismatic and involving, drawing all into his world. He’s a bigger-than-life icon that demands attention whenever Kaluuya/Hampton is on the stage. I expect an Oscar nomination (at least) for this performance.
The problem with this film is that Kaluuya’s Hampton is such a strong and commanding presence that the rest of the story and characters pale in comparison to him.
Such is the case with Stanfield’s portrayal of O’Neal. I really like LaKeith Stanfield as a performer and was really looking forward to seeing him and Kaluuya go toe-to-toe, but his character is swallowed up in the largess of the Hampton character and, so, I never connected or sympathized with him. I don’t blame this on the actor, I blame this on the script and the direction of King, making the O’Neal character weak - especially when he is up against Hampton.
The character/actor that WAS able to hold their own with Kaluuya/Hampton is Dominique Fishback as Hampton’s lover (and mother of his child), Deborah Johnson. The scenes of Hampton and Johnson together were sharp and interesting - perhaps because Hampton was toned down, but also because Fishback’s portrayal of Johnson was strong enough to stand up to Kaluuya’s portrayal of Hampton.
In addition, Kaluuya’s performance is so strong in this film that it is noticeable when it is absent, so when his character is sent to prison (and disappears) for the middle 1/3 of this film, the movie drags considerably.
Finally, the film hits a plateau at about the 4/5 mark and doesn’t really build to a crescendo at the end - an ending that should be powerful, but just sorts of lies there.
All-in-all, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH is worth seeing for the powerful performance by Daniel Kaluuya that more than makes up for the shortcomings of the rest of the film.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BoxTV – Free Bollywood Movies, Hollywood and TV Shows
Entertainment and Photo & Video
App
Watch Bollywood, Hollywood and regional movies along with your favourite TV shows only on BoxTV!...
IT… didn’t really float my boat.
IT is based on the Stephen King novel, and tells the disturbing recurring events that happen within the town of Derry in Maine. Kids keep disappearing and sightings of a spooky clown, other visitations and red balloons occur. A group of bullied high school kids – one directly impacted by the disappearances – work to get to the bottom of the supernatural goings on. (Fortunately they don’t have a dog called Scooby).
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.