Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Verdict: A Pryce & Hopkins Masterclass
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Mary Queen of Scots (2018) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Verdict: Beautifully Shot
Story: Mary Queen of Scots starts as Queen Mary (Ronan) returns to Scotland a widow, her presence in Britain as put Queen Elizabeth (Robbie) position of Queen of England under pressure, as Mary has a rightful claim to the throne.
Mary does want to create peace, asking for one simply thing, to be the heir to the throne, while Elizabeth isn’t willing to accept this demand unless Mary marries an English nobleman, with her choice being Robert Dudley (Alwyn), while Mary falls for Henry Darnley (Lowden). As the tensions between the two queens rises, a potential war starts brewing for control of Britain.
Thoughts on Mary Queen of Scots
Characters – Queen Mary has returned from France after the death of her husband, she takes her place as Queen of Scotland looking to rebuild a nation, she wants to keep the peace between the two nations with her sister Queen Elizabeth, she wants to put her own place as heir on the line, believing she will get the chance if Elizabeth doesn’t have children. She has her own marriage with an English man, the one not selected for her and is always finding herself controlled by the actions of men, despite wanting to find her position of power. Queen Elizabeth is worried that Mary will put them into a war, she wants to stop the threat sooner, though her demands are simply, marry an English noble man and the two can live in harmony. We do know Elizabeth tendencies from history, though we also see how she is being controlled by the men around her, just like Mary. When it comes to the men we meet, we see countless noble men that are trying to put their own name of power into position so they could one day control their country, none of them want what is best for either Queen.
Performances – Saoirse Ronan is incredible in the leading role showing that she is a major talent in the industry who can step into any role, while Margot Robbie shines in the supporting role, never looking out of place in her role in the film. Everyone else is strong through the film, letting both the two leading ladies shine the most.
Story – The story here follows Mary Queen of Scots who returned to Scotland looking to unite the two countries with her sister Queen Elizabeth ruling England, while the people around them, always try to stop the two working things out. This is a story based on history, it shows how leaders will try to create peace, only for people around them never wanting to let this happen, it showed how Queen might have power, but they didn’t have control however much they tried to get their ideas through. It shows how in a by gone age, people would look down on a woman in power, believing they had duties to produce babies and heirs rather than actually rule the land. We do focus more on the struggle of Queen Mary and how she tried to always do the right thing and the downs that came her way.
Biopic – The biopic side of this film plays into the history of the two Queen of Britain who both tried to do the right thing to help bring people together and never were given the control.
Settings – The settings look beautiful for each shot, with the sets look stunning, while the outdoor locations are breath taking.
Scene of the Movie – The meeting between the two.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have seen more from the Elizabeth side of the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautifully shot movie that tells a huge moment in history that showed that the women in power never got the power they were meant to have.
Overall: Important Historical Drama.
Story: Mary Queen of Scots starts as Queen Mary (Ronan) returns to Scotland a widow, her presence in Britain as put Queen Elizabeth (Robbie) position of Queen of England under pressure, as Mary has a rightful claim to the throne.
Mary does want to create peace, asking for one simply thing, to be the heir to the throne, while Elizabeth isn’t willing to accept this demand unless Mary marries an English nobleman, with her choice being Robert Dudley (Alwyn), while Mary falls for Henry Darnley (Lowden). As the tensions between the two queens rises, a potential war starts brewing for control of Britain.
Thoughts on Mary Queen of Scots
Characters – Queen Mary has returned from France after the death of her husband, she takes her place as Queen of Scotland looking to rebuild a nation, she wants to keep the peace between the two nations with her sister Queen Elizabeth, she wants to put her own place as heir on the line, believing she will get the chance if Elizabeth doesn’t have children. She has her own marriage with an English man, the one not selected for her and is always finding herself controlled by the actions of men, despite wanting to find her position of power. Queen Elizabeth is worried that Mary will put them into a war, she wants to stop the threat sooner, though her demands are simply, marry an English noble man and the two can live in harmony. We do know Elizabeth tendencies from history, though we also see how she is being controlled by the men around her, just like Mary. When it comes to the men we meet, we see countless noble men that are trying to put their own name of power into position so they could one day control their country, none of them want what is best for either Queen.
Performances – Saoirse Ronan is incredible in the leading role showing that she is a major talent in the industry who can step into any role, while Margot Robbie shines in the supporting role, never looking out of place in her role in the film. Everyone else is strong through the film, letting both the two leading ladies shine the most.
Story – The story here follows Mary Queen of Scots who returned to Scotland looking to unite the two countries with her sister Queen Elizabeth ruling England, while the people around them, always try to stop the two working things out. This is a story based on history, it shows how leaders will try to create peace, only for people around them never wanting to let this happen, it showed how Queen might have power, but they didn’t have control however much they tried to get their ideas through. It shows how in a by gone age, people would look down on a woman in power, believing they had duties to produce babies and heirs rather than actually rule the land. We do focus more on the struggle of Queen Mary and how she tried to always do the right thing and the downs that came her way.
Biopic – The biopic side of this film plays into the history of the two Queen of Britain who both tried to do the right thing to help bring people together and never were given the control.
Settings – The settings look beautiful for each shot, with the sets look stunning, while the outdoor locations are breath taking.
Scene of the Movie – The meeting between the two.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have seen more from the Elizabeth side of the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautifully shot movie that tells a huge moment in history that showed that the women in power never got the power they were meant to have.
Overall: Important Historical Drama.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020 (Updated Aug 28, 2020)
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is genuinely wonderful.
Like any good drama, it if course has its somber moments, but the overall atmosphere is so heart warming, it honestly feels like a lovely hug, but one of those lovely hugs that makes you cry because life is hard sometimes.
Growing up in the UK, I never watched Mr Rogers, but was always aware of him, and just how much he meant to a massive number of people. This film is less a biopic, and concentrates firmly one one point of Fred Rogers life, namely when he met Tom Junod (presented here as fictional character Lloyd Vogel), a journalist writing for Esquire and profiling Mr Rogers for a piece on American Heroes.
Lloyd is a cynical person, who doesn't hold much love for his fellow man. This begins to change as he spends more time with Fred, a man who truly sees the good in everyone.
At the same time, Lloyd's estranged father is trying to reconnect with him, forcing him to relive past trauma as he struggles to forgive.
It's all very emotionally charged, but wrapped up neatly in Oscar-baiting packaging.
Tom Hanks as Mr Rogers, and Matthew Rhys as Lloyd are nothing short of excellent. Their chemistry is thoroughly believable. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game here, just as much as he has ever been.
The supporting cast are great as well, especially Susan Kelechi Watson and Chris Cooper.
ABDITN also looks fantastic. The contrast of real life drama to dream like sequences within Mr Rogers' show is an inspired choice by director Marielle Heller, and the use of model cars and cities as segues is effective.
The original score by her brother Nate Heller is just downright pleasant.
Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a decent drama about the importance of family, and what it means to love others, whilst remaining a well written love letter to Feed Rogers himself. It's just a really swell movie, definitely check it out.
Like any good drama, it if course has its somber moments, but the overall atmosphere is so heart warming, it honestly feels like a lovely hug, but one of those lovely hugs that makes you cry because life is hard sometimes.
Growing up in the UK, I never watched Mr Rogers, but was always aware of him, and just how much he meant to a massive number of people. This film is less a biopic, and concentrates firmly one one point of Fred Rogers life, namely when he met Tom Junod (presented here as fictional character Lloyd Vogel), a journalist writing for Esquire and profiling Mr Rogers for a piece on American Heroes.
Lloyd is a cynical person, who doesn't hold much love for his fellow man. This begins to change as he spends more time with Fred, a man who truly sees the good in everyone.
At the same time, Lloyd's estranged father is trying to reconnect with him, forcing him to relive past trauma as he struggles to forgive.
It's all very emotionally charged, but wrapped up neatly in Oscar-baiting packaging.
Tom Hanks as Mr Rogers, and Matthew Rhys as Lloyd are nothing short of excellent. Their chemistry is thoroughly believable. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game here, just as much as he has ever been.
The supporting cast are great as well, especially Susan Kelechi Watson and Chris Cooper.
ABDITN also looks fantastic. The contrast of real life drama to dream like sequences within Mr Rogers' show is an inspired choice by director Marielle Heller, and the use of model cars and cities as segues is effective.
The original score by her brother Nate Heller is just downright pleasant.
Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a decent drama about the importance of family, and what it means to love others, whilst remaining a well written love letter to Feed Rogers himself. It's just a really swell movie, definitely check it out.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
An honest, captivating and respectful biopic
Biopics are not easy to perfect and when you’re dealing with an iconic figure such as Freddie Mercury, it becomes even harder. When this film was announced it seemed natural to feel a little bit of apprehension, because could anyone really portray Freddie? Who could bring him to life on screen before thousands of fans? Thankfully, for me at least, my worries were soon quenched as soon as I began to watch it. I thought was a stunning film and I have no problem admitting that brought tears to my eyes on several occasions.
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A biopic that’s not just for wrestling fans
Let me make something clear before I dive into my review: I don’t like wrestling. Actually, I hate wrestling. I could barely name another wrestler aside from The Rock and John Cena, so at a glance this film really isn’t marketed towards me. But when we go a little deeper, it becomes clear that this is an incredibly accessible film with a powerful message.
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
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.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Walk In The Woods (2015) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Director: Ken Kwapis
Writer: Michael Arndt, Bill Holderman (Screenplay) Bill Bryson (Book)
Starring: Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Emma Thompson, Mary Steenburgen, Nick Offerman, Kristen Schaal, R. Keith Harris
Plot: After spending two decades in England, Bill Bryson returns to the U.S., where he decides the best way to connect with his homeland is to hike the Appalachian Trail with one of his oldest friends.
Tagline – When you push yourself to the edge, the real fun begins.
Runtime: 1 Hour 44 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Never Captures the Sense of Adventure
Story: A Walk in the Woods starts when author Bill Bryson (Redford) returns to America after years of travel books, where he has never written about his homeland. Bill wants to walk the Appalachian Trail, over 2000miles, his wife Catherine (Thompson) isn’t happy with this decision forcing him to go with somebody, which sees him reconnect with an old friend Stephen Katz (Nolte).
Even though Stephen isn’t in the best shape for this hike, he is the only person that accepts the offer and the two set out on the 6-month long hike, hoping to create his next best seller, while reconnecting with an old friend.
Thoughts on A Walk in the Woods
Characters – Bill Bryson is a travel author that has been writing about hiking trails all over the world, only he has never written about America, he wants to change this, hoping to give himself a chance to experience the American walking trail of the Appalachian Trail, one of the most challenging hikes in the country. Stephen Katz is the only person that is willing to join Bill on his adventure, the two have had their differences in the past, he isn’t in the best shape for this adventure and sees it as a chance to reconnect with an old friend. Catherine is the wife of Bill that doesn’t want Bill to go on this hike, she is worried about everything that could happen, forcing him to go with somebody on the trip. Jeannie is one of the ladies that they guys meet on the journey, she is one of the many people they meet along the way.
Performances – Robert Redford and Nick Nolte are wonderful together in the leading role, you get to believe their friendship has been through the ups and downs life has to offer, only to let them get their solo moments when needed for the film. when we get to the supporting cast Emma Thompson does get her chance to shine without getting too much screen time.
Story – The story here follows an author who sets out on a new adventure travelling the Appalachian Trail, first for himself and secondly for his latest book, he reconnects with an old friend to join him on this adventure. This story does have a big difference from the book which sees a big age change, which does change the story, which is more focused on the older generation that are seeing their friends die and wanting to do another adventure before it is too late. The trip itself never gets shown in distance scale either, we know how far it is, but we don’t seem to learn where it starts and finishes or what locations we go through.
Adventure/Biopic/Comedy – The adventure side of the film does take the men on with a location that will be one of the highlights of the film, the biopic side of the film does use the real names, but not the real ages which does change the dynamic of the story completely. The comedy will give you a couple of laughs along the way, without it being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The settings in the film do give us a couple of beautiful shots, though we don’t get to feel the distance being travelled.
Scene of the Movie – Mary Ellen.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We never feel the distance they are traveling through the film.
Final Thoughts – This is an adventure film that doesn’t give us the sense of adventure that it could have, we do get great performances, but the story never draws us in the way it could.
Overall: Disappointing adventure.
Rating
Writer: Michael Arndt, Bill Holderman (Screenplay) Bill Bryson (Book)
Starring: Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Emma Thompson, Mary Steenburgen, Nick Offerman, Kristen Schaal, R. Keith Harris
Plot: After spending two decades in England, Bill Bryson returns to the U.S., where he decides the best way to connect with his homeland is to hike the Appalachian Trail with one of his oldest friends.
Tagline – When you push yourself to the edge, the real fun begins.
Runtime: 1 Hour 44 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Never Captures the Sense of Adventure
Story: A Walk in the Woods starts when author Bill Bryson (Redford) returns to America after years of travel books, where he has never written about his homeland. Bill wants to walk the Appalachian Trail, over 2000miles, his wife Catherine (Thompson) isn’t happy with this decision forcing him to go with somebody, which sees him reconnect with an old friend Stephen Katz (Nolte).
Even though Stephen isn’t in the best shape for this hike, he is the only person that accepts the offer and the two set out on the 6-month long hike, hoping to create his next best seller, while reconnecting with an old friend.
Thoughts on A Walk in the Woods
Characters – Bill Bryson is a travel author that has been writing about hiking trails all over the world, only he has never written about America, he wants to change this, hoping to give himself a chance to experience the American walking trail of the Appalachian Trail, one of the most challenging hikes in the country. Stephen Katz is the only person that is willing to join Bill on his adventure, the two have had their differences in the past, he isn’t in the best shape for this adventure and sees it as a chance to reconnect with an old friend. Catherine is the wife of Bill that doesn’t want Bill to go on this hike, she is worried about everything that could happen, forcing him to go with somebody on the trip. Jeannie is one of the ladies that they guys meet on the journey, she is one of the many people they meet along the way.
Performances – Robert Redford and Nick Nolte are wonderful together in the leading role, you get to believe their friendship has been through the ups and downs life has to offer, only to let them get their solo moments when needed for the film. when we get to the supporting cast Emma Thompson does get her chance to shine without getting too much screen time.
Story – The story here follows an author who sets out on a new adventure travelling the Appalachian Trail, first for himself and secondly for his latest book, he reconnects with an old friend to join him on this adventure. This story does have a big difference from the book which sees a big age change, which does change the story, which is more focused on the older generation that are seeing their friends die and wanting to do another adventure before it is too late. The trip itself never gets shown in distance scale either, we know how far it is, but we don’t seem to learn where it starts and finishes or what locations we go through.
Adventure/Biopic/Comedy – The adventure side of the film does take the men on with a location that will be one of the highlights of the film, the biopic side of the film does use the real names, but not the real ages which does change the dynamic of the story completely. The comedy will give you a couple of laughs along the way, without it being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The settings in the film do give us a couple of beautiful shots, though we don’t get to feel the distance being travelled.
Scene of the Movie – Mary Ellen.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We never feel the distance they are traveling through the film.
Final Thoughts – This is an adventure film that doesn’t give us the sense of adventure that it could have, we do get great performances, but the story never draws us in the way it could.
Overall: Disappointing adventure.
Rating
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Judy, is the biopic based on the stage play “End of the Rainbow” which chronicles Judy Garland’s five week run in 1968 London, at The Talk of the Town Nightclub. Ms. Garland, one of the victims of the old Hollywood studio treatments that contributed to her tragic upbringing.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.