Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated A Little Princess in Books
Nov 7, 2019
A little Princess was published in full by Charles Scribner's sons in September of 1905 after being a serialisation in St. Nicholas Magazine in 1887 and being a novella in 1888. The book was named one of the Teachers top books for children in 2007 and in 2012 was ranked 56th in the School Library Journal survey. The story follows Sara Crewe a wealthy heiress being sent off to boarding school in England. Despite being wealthy Sara isn't snobbish and rude but polite, clever and generous befriending several other students and the scullery maid Becky. Sara goes from privilege to a pauper after her fathers scheme with is friend over a diamond mine supposedly fails. After spending a few years working hard at the school she once attended Sara is found by her fathers friend and returned to privilege after finding out the diamond mines actually worked.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
The De Havilland DH.60 Moth
Book
In this book Stuart McKay tells the story of the ground-breaking DH.60 Moth, an aircraft that was to...
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"i'm just a kid from brooklyn"
"I'm just a kid from Brooklyn"
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.
Mary Wickes: I Know I've Seen That Face Before
Book
The full story of one of Hollywood's most accomplished character actresses. Moviegoers know her as...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Victim of its marketing
It’s always refreshing to see a film released primarily for the adult market. We all loved The Hunger Games, but imagine what the series could’ve been like had the franchise been given a 15 or even an 18 certification.
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shaun the Sheep Movie (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Shaun the Sheep is a spin-off from the popular British stop-motion animation show Wallace and Gromit. This one of a kind, smart, and loveable sheep burst on to the small screen nearly twenty years ago in the short “A Close Shave.” Winning the hearts of millions, it’s no surprise a movie was in the works.
This film starts off with a silent monologue of how Shaun, the rest of flock of sheep, and Bitzer, the loyal and always “by the book” sheepdog, came to live with the Farmer. Fast forward a few years, sick and tired of the redundant life of waking up early, being herded throughout the farm, shaved, and fed the same food every day, Shaun brilliantly devises a plan to give him and the flock the day off. Unfortunately, the plan of tricking the Farmer to fall asleep in an RV trailer goes awry when the trailer wriggles loose from its tire wedges sending the Farmer off on an out of control trip and ending up in the Big City with amnesia. Stuck on the Farm with no one to tend to their needs, the Sheep and Bitzer panic and set off to the Big City to bring the Farmer back home. And, so begins the adventure into unchartered territory.
It’s remarkable that a movie with no dialogue manages to convey so many messages and emotions-from anger, comic relief, sadness to gratitude and joy. My hats go off to writer-director duo, Mark Burton and Richard Starzak, and the rest of the animation team for paying such wonderful attention to detail with the characters, the vibrant scenery, and also being on point with the comedic timing.
Every generation will love this movie and it definitely proves that silence is golden.
This film starts off with a silent monologue of how Shaun, the rest of flock of sheep, and Bitzer, the loyal and always “by the book” sheepdog, came to live with the Farmer. Fast forward a few years, sick and tired of the redundant life of waking up early, being herded throughout the farm, shaved, and fed the same food every day, Shaun brilliantly devises a plan to give him and the flock the day off. Unfortunately, the plan of tricking the Farmer to fall asleep in an RV trailer goes awry when the trailer wriggles loose from its tire wedges sending the Farmer off on an out of control trip and ending up in the Big City with amnesia. Stuck on the Farm with no one to tend to their needs, the Sheep and Bitzer panic and set off to the Big City to bring the Farmer back home. And, so begins the adventure into unchartered territory.
It’s remarkable that a movie with no dialogue manages to convey so many messages and emotions-from anger, comic relief, sadness to gratitude and joy. My hats go off to writer-director duo, Mark Burton and Richard Starzak, and the rest of the animation team for paying such wonderful attention to detail with the characters, the vibrant scenery, and also being on point with the comedic timing.
Every generation will love this movie and it definitely proves that silence is golden.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Projecting Britain at War: The National Character in British World War II Films
Book
This detailed chronological analysis of British World War II movies from 1939 until the present...
Animation: A World History: Volume I: Foundations - The Golden Age
Book
A continuation of 1994's groundbreaking Cartoons, Giannalberto Bendazzi's Animation: A World History...