Search
Search results
Post-9/11 Heartland Horror: Rural Horror Films in an Era of Urban Terrorism
Victoria McCollum and C. Richard King
Book
This book explores the resurgence of rural horror following the events of 9/11, as a number of...
My House of Sky: A Life of J.A. Baker
Book
Since his rise to fame in 1967 when his work "The Peregrine" was awarded the Duff Cooper Memorial...
science nature
Dracula FAQ: All That's Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania
Book
Dracula FAQ unearths little-known facts about both the historical and literary Dracula. The...
He's Just Not That into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys
Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo
6.8
Rate It
Book
Why didn't he call you back? Why doesn't he talk to your friends? Why does he keep putting off your...
Bret Easton Ellis recommended Barry Lyndon (1975) in Movies (curated)
Leni Riefenstahl
Book
Leni Riefenstahl achieved fame as a dancer, actress, photographer, and director, but her entire...
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Hobbit in Books
Nov 5, 2018
See the latest version of this review over on Ramble Media http://www.ramblemedia.com/?p=19585
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.