Search
Search results
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)
I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now
Contains spoilers, click to show
“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now.”
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Collector in Books
May 4, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whenever you move to a small town, there is always a hidden secret. When one of those secrets is children going missing, it makes for a great horror story. But 'the Collector' makes for an okay one,with most of its twist and turns being highly predictable.
Josie, the main character of 'the Collector,' has just been uprooted from Chicago with her younger sister, Anna, after their single mother just lost her job. They move in with their ailing grandmother in a small town far away, where she warns the girls to never enter the woods that surround her house. Very early in the book (literally within the first ten pages), Josie and Anna hear a voice coming from the forbidden woods, calling out their names. This isn't the best horror book I've ever read, but it has its quirks.
The reader gets to follow Josie through the story, from her time at a new school to nightmare fueled dreams. She watches her mother take care of her grandmother, who has Alzheimer's, but the grandmother constantly speaks of someone named Beryl, and how this woman knows and wants Josie and Anna. Fortunately, Josie meets a girl at her new school named Vanessa, who becomes a quick friend. Josie speaks about the woods around her grandmother's house, and how she and her sister weren't allowed to enter them, but Vanessa believes there's nothing to worry about: " 'There's nothing to be scared of in the woods,' she said. Her voice sounded different. Flat. Like she was reciting a line from a story she'd read, but didn't believe. 'It's just trees and animals.' "
Josie and Anna soon go over to Vanessa's house, where she lives with her aunt. Little did they know that the house was the one in the forbidden woods that their grandmother warned them about. Josie ignores the rule and enters the home; inside, they are met with a hoarding collection of porcelain dolls, lining the walls and the floors of the entire house. Although Josie has had dreams about this house before even meeting Vanessa, including a life-size doll that answered the door(which she later states looked just like Vanessa), she didn't put the easily accessible puzzle pieces together.
Ignoring the obvious, Josie invites Vanessa over for a sleep-over, where we witness Josie's grandmother instantly recognizing her friend. Vanessa quickly leaves, taking off into the woods towards her home without giving an excuse or getting her overnight bag. When Josie asks her grandmother how she knew Vanessa, her grandmother replies: " 'Beryl is coming!'... 'You've brought her in here. I can't protect you. Not anymore.' "
Josie becomes angry and decides to confront her friend, Vanessa, and find out why she left the way that she did. When she reaches Vanessa's house in the woods, she can hear her crying,but there's another voice - a voice from Josie's dreams of none other than Beryl! Josie overhears Beryl demanding that Vanessa bring her another child for her collection.
Anyone who ever enjoyed R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps' or 'Fear Street' series will enjoy this book. The story follows the basics of all young adult horror books: one pre-teen/teen experiences something supernatural, and no one believes them, so they are left to fend off the threat by themselves. But this one leaves out the teen drama of a blossoming romance with a boy-crazy girl, instead focusing on an older sister's love for her sibling. "I felt I should apologize to her before dinner. I should try and show her that I was sorry by offering to bring her food or something. I had to protect her, and that meant she had to trust me again."
One aspect that was needed was character development - there is such a lack of backstory that the reader can't bring themselves to care about any of the characters. Alexander keeps the story going with no lulls of teen life, but very little human interaction. Josie spends a lot of time with her younger sister, Anna, but the interactions are quick and seem unimportant.
'The Collector' is good for a quick read with a few scares here and there. I would recommend this book for pre-teens that are interested in horror genre books, but not wanting to deal with the nightmares that horror books for an older generation might bring. Although the ending of the book seemed rush, with a quick death of our villain by the hands of Josie, we are left with an opening for a possible sequel: "Slowly, I opened my eyes, tried to make my vision adjuts. I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a doll on my nightstand. A doll that looked an awful lot like Beryl. " It ends like most horror movies end, but was it good enough for a sequel? I don't think so.
Josie, the main character of 'the Collector,' has just been uprooted from Chicago with her younger sister, Anna, after their single mother just lost her job. They move in with their ailing grandmother in a small town far away, where she warns the girls to never enter the woods that surround her house. Very early in the book (literally within the first ten pages), Josie and Anna hear a voice coming from the forbidden woods, calling out their names. This isn't the best horror book I've ever read, but it has its quirks.
The reader gets to follow Josie through the story, from her time at a new school to nightmare fueled dreams. She watches her mother take care of her grandmother, who has Alzheimer's, but the grandmother constantly speaks of someone named Beryl, and how this woman knows and wants Josie and Anna. Fortunately, Josie meets a girl at her new school named Vanessa, who becomes a quick friend. Josie speaks about the woods around her grandmother's house, and how she and her sister weren't allowed to enter them, but Vanessa believes there's nothing to worry about: " 'There's nothing to be scared of in the woods,' she said. Her voice sounded different. Flat. Like she was reciting a line from a story she'd read, but didn't believe. 'It's just trees and animals.' "
Josie and Anna soon go over to Vanessa's house, where she lives with her aunt. Little did they know that the house was the one in the forbidden woods that their grandmother warned them about. Josie ignores the rule and enters the home; inside, they are met with a hoarding collection of porcelain dolls, lining the walls and the floors of the entire house. Although Josie has had dreams about this house before even meeting Vanessa, including a life-size doll that answered the door(which she later states looked just like Vanessa), she didn't put the easily accessible puzzle pieces together.
Ignoring the obvious, Josie invites Vanessa over for a sleep-over, where we witness Josie's grandmother instantly recognizing her friend. Vanessa quickly leaves, taking off into the woods towards her home without giving an excuse or getting her overnight bag. When Josie asks her grandmother how she knew Vanessa, her grandmother replies: " 'Beryl is coming!'... 'You've brought her in here. I can't protect you. Not anymore.' "
Josie becomes angry and decides to confront her friend, Vanessa, and find out why she left the way that she did. When she reaches Vanessa's house in the woods, she can hear her crying,but there's another voice - a voice from Josie's dreams of none other than Beryl! Josie overhears Beryl demanding that Vanessa bring her another child for her collection.
Anyone who ever enjoyed R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps' or 'Fear Street' series will enjoy this book. The story follows the basics of all young adult horror books: one pre-teen/teen experiences something supernatural, and no one believes them, so they are left to fend off the threat by themselves. But this one leaves out the teen drama of a blossoming romance with a boy-crazy girl, instead focusing on an older sister's love for her sibling. "I felt I should apologize to her before dinner. I should try and show her that I was sorry by offering to bring her food or something. I had to protect her, and that meant she had to trust me again."
One aspect that was needed was character development - there is such a lack of backstory that the reader can't bring themselves to care about any of the characters. Alexander keeps the story going with no lulls of teen life, but very little human interaction. Josie spends a lot of time with her younger sister, Anna, but the interactions are quick and seem unimportant.
'The Collector' is good for a quick read with a few scares here and there. I would recommend this book for pre-teens that are interested in horror genre books, but not wanting to deal with the nightmares that horror books for an older generation might bring. Although the ending of the book seemed rush, with a quick death of our villain by the hands of Josie, we are left with an opening for a possible sequel: "Slowly, I opened my eyes, tried to make my vision adjuts. I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a doll on my nightstand. A doll that looked an awful lot like Beryl. " It ends like most horror movies end, but was it good enough for a sequel? I don't think so.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from the ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage"
Full of life, joy, sorrow, and hilarity; Ryan Coogler's Black Panther just has a vibrancy you rarely find in the superhero scene, let alone blockbusters. Enriched with a deep, abiding love for African culture and Afrofuturism; the movie just feels purposeful. Important. Meaningful. Context matters here, as Black Panther will become one of very few films populated by African Americans not dealing with slavery or black history to thrive financially. And that cast is phenomenal. Boseman's soft-spoken panther-of-few-words is the rare MCUer to opt for a moment of silence rather than a snarky comment. Michael B Jordan brings an unmistakable swagger to the perpetually weak slate of Marvel villains, conveying a crushingly sad and challenging story that could just as easily be regarded as the true hero of the film. Letitia Wright as the genius tech maestro was a blast, a character who could give Tony Stark a run for his money both technologically and charismatically. And these are just three of Coogler's creations; drawn from a slate of inspired, unique and wonderfully represented roles for black actors...many of whom will deservingly use this as a career springboard of sorts.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Don't Stop Believin' in Books
May 28, 2019
I was obsessed with Olivia Newton-John as a little girl. As a little girl, I knew all of her songs by heart, and I had watched all of her movies over and over. I do admit that as I grew up, my obsession faded. However, when I saw Olivia's autobiography, Don't Stop Believin', on the shelf at my local library, I decided to give it a read. While it was enjoyable, it just came across as kind of preachy.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More of the same
Who would have thought we would get to this? I certainly didn’t. After the right royal mess 20th Century Fox made of everyone’s favourite anti-hero, Deadpool, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine all those years ago, it felt like a solo outing would never be possible, never mind a sequel.
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has pixar got it's mojo back?
Pixar has been on something of a downward trend of late, and that’s something I never thought I’d say. As much as it hurts, films like Cars 3, Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur just don’t cut the mustard when compared to some of the studio’s greats.
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Galaxy like you've never seen it before
Crafting sequels is never easy, but creating a fitting sequel to 2015’s biggest movie and one of the world’s biggest franchises is no easy feat. Not only do you have to make a film that moves the game on from The Force Awakens, but one that also meets the incredibly high expectations of fans across the globe.
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Iron Lady (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Meryl Streep certainly has an impressive roster of films under her belt. She’s reduced Anne Hathaway to tears in The Devil Wears Prada, she’s played the role of struggling hotelier in the all singing, all dancing Mamma Mia and has racked up an astonishing 16 Oscar nominations for films like Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie’s Choice. However, here, she perhaps takes on her biggest role to date portraying arguably the most controversial figure in British politics; Baroness Thatcher. Can she pull it off? Did you really need to ask?
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated After Earth (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
M Night Shyamalan is a director of two-halves. On one hand we have the man who gave us the amazing blockbusters Signs, Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense, which were met with commercial and critical success; and on the other hand we have the man who tortured the cinema-going public with abominations like The Lady in the Water, The Village and perhaps one of the worst films of all time, The Happening.
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/