Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
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.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Planet 51 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
On a planet far from our own, green creatures are experiencing their own version of the 1950’s. Among them is Lem (Justin Long) who has just gotten his first job as an assistant at the local planetarium. When a space ship appears harboring an alien, human astronaut Captain Charles T. Baker (Dwayne Johnson), the fearful locals are not so friendly. It is up to Lem to save the astronaut and help his people learn not to fear the world beyond what they know.
The film is written for both children and adults, like a toned down version of “Shrek†with a more relevant moral feel. Putting the characters in the 1950s adds to the film’s charm, allowing kids access to the blatant characterizations of the time period, such as the bumbling science professor and the hippy protestor who maintains from the start that the alien is friendly.
Other characters of note are Lem’s comic book and movie fanatic best friend, Skiff (Seann William Scott) and the military commander General Grawl (Gary Oldman) who is hell-bent on capturing the alien. Children will also enjoy the two pet creatures from a local alien dog that excretes acid to a rock-obsessed robot sent to pick up local specimens for Baker.
“Planet 51†is wholly entertaining. It provides some mature insight by displaying how we would appear to another culture if we ever did encounter aliens. This switch of perspective is sure to make children think and laugh over the simple cross-cultural mishaps that occur while Lem and Baker are attempting to find common ground.
A delightful, animated romp, “Planet 51†will make you hope for a groovy 1960’s sequel.
The film is written for both children and adults, like a toned down version of “Shrek†with a more relevant moral feel. Putting the characters in the 1950s adds to the film’s charm, allowing kids access to the blatant characterizations of the time period, such as the bumbling science professor and the hippy protestor who maintains from the start that the alien is friendly.
Other characters of note are Lem’s comic book and movie fanatic best friend, Skiff (Seann William Scott) and the military commander General Grawl (Gary Oldman) who is hell-bent on capturing the alien. Children will also enjoy the two pet creatures from a local alien dog that excretes acid to a rock-obsessed robot sent to pick up local specimens for Baker.
“Planet 51†is wholly entertaining. It provides some mature insight by displaying how we would appear to another culture if we ever did encounter aliens. This switch of perspective is sure to make children think and laugh over the simple cross-cultural mishaps that occur while Lem and Baker are attempting to find common ground.
A delightful, animated romp, “Planet 51†will make you hope for a groovy 1960’s sequel.
AP
Arthur Penn
Robin Wood, Richard Lippe and Barry Keith Grant
Book
Arthur Penn - director of The Miracle Worker , Bonnie and Clyde , Alice's Restaurant and Little Big...
Show Dog: The Charmed Life and Trying Times of a Near-Perfect Purebred
Book
By spending a year alongside rising star Jack, a champion Australian Shepherd, and his friends,...
AM
A Middle-Earth Traveller: Sketches from Bag End to Mordor
Book
Let acclaimed Tolkien artist John Howe take you on an unforgettable journey across Middle-earth,...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Abducted in Plain Sight (2017) in Movies
Apr 8, 2021
Now this one has to be seen to be believed! It is a short documentary film of about 90 minutes, not a series, but it plays like a longer episode of a series – except by the end there is no more to tell. In and out, thankfully! It is the story of Jan Broberg, a relatively successful Hollywood supporting actress, who wrote a book about her abduction by a close family friend when she was a child in the 70s. As the story unfolds, especially if you are a parent yourself, you will be screaming at the screen in total disbelief and indignation every ten minutes, and twice as loud at the end!
I can’t go into the details without ruining it, but suffice to say that the series of events is one of the strangest stories, fact or fiction, that I have ever heard! The audacity and total manipulation of the offender, in conjunction with the insane naivety of Jan and her parents is mind-blowing! How he got away with it in any way for longer than a day is unfathomable enough, but this was abuse that went on unpunished for years. Is it the bible belt attitude to blame? I am… still… scratching my head on this one! How did these events and crimes ever happen? Just, wow! Do yourself a favour if you want to be shocked and have a good rant at the TV, watch this and see for yourself.
I can’t go into the details without ruining it, but suffice to say that the series of events is one of the strangest stories, fact or fiction, that I have ever heard! The audacity and total manipulation of the offender, in conjunction with the insane naivety of Jan and her parents is mind-blowing! How he got away with it in any way for longer than a day is unfathomable enough, but this was abuse that went on unpunished for years. Is it the bible belt attitude to blame? I am… still… scratching my head on this one! How did these events and crimes ever happen? Just, wow! Do yourself a favour if you want to be shocked and have a good rant at the TV, watch this and see for yourself.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Mar 16, 2020
Ding-dong action movie based on an obscure comic book is saddled with a silly name, plus it's a non-Fast & Furious Vin Diesel vehicle, but turns out to be reasonably watchable if you cut it some slack. US special forces soldier is murdered but resurrected by boffins; now he's super-strong, heals really fast, and his blood can connect to the internet. He sets out to get revenge on his killers, but discovers his memories may not be entirely trustworthy...
Whatever his other limitations as a performer, Diesel is fairly well-cast as a relentless human bulldozer of revenge, and the film does have (in theory) a decent plot twist, some interesting ideas (bordering on the existential), and reasonably well-mounted action sequences. With a bigger budget and a more inspired director this could have been an impressively thoughtful piece of SF action, but it feels clunky, not interested in exploring the things that make it distinctive, and there are lots of annoying missteps and short-cuts (a foot chase supposedly around London is clearly really taking place in suburban South Africa). Passes the time in a reasonably diverting way, though.
Whatever his other limitations as a performer, Diesel is fairly well-cast as a relentless human bulldozer of revenge, and the film does have (in theory) a decent plot twist, some interesting ideas (bordering on the existential), and reasonably well-mounted action sequences. With a bigger budget and a more inspired director this could have been an impressively thoughtful piece of SF action, but it feels clunky, not interested in exploring the things that make it distinctive, and there are lots of annoying missteps and short-cuts (a foot chase supposedly around London is clearly really taking place in suburban South Africa). Passes the time in a reasonably diverting way, though.