Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Mandy Lane (Amber Heard) becomes the most desirable girl in high school over one fateful summer; she's definitely not like the other girls her age though. While most guys want to do everything imaginable to her, she's turned them all down. The only guy she really gives the time of day is her best friend, Emmet (Michael Welch). That is until a certain incident at a pool party comes between them. Now nine months later, Mandy has distanced herself from Emmet and has a group of new friends. These friends have decided to invite Mandy to a ranch out in the middle of nowhere for a few days and the guys who tag along hope to accomplish what, up to this point, has been impossible. But when people begin to turn up missing, they soon realize that they're not alone and someone is taking their obsession with Mandy Lane a little too far.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It is easy to be cynical or dismissive regarding the trend in Hollywood to take up beloved gems of the past – namely our childhoods – and adapt them to the big screen with all of the flare and clichés of a summer blockbuster. Yet, what happens when it actually ends up winning you over? There’s a moment in movies like “Snow White and the Huntsman” in which you realize you have let go of those prejudices and notions of incorruptible nostalgia and you’ve actually started to enjoy a new rendition of something old. It’s the directorial debut for the film’s helmer, Rupert Sanders; and to be honest he’s the star of the show. As shallow as it is to say, the visual effects and action overshadow most flaws with characters, acting, or uneven pacing. Not only because his directing ability is well done, but because any flaws with the movie are relatively minor.
The movie retells the familiar story of Snow White (Kristen Stewart), likely popularized by Disney’s adaptation for most of us. Yet, the film takes more influence from the original fairy tale with the additional focus on the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Snow White grows up in a kingdom under the rule of her wicked step-mother, Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron). The Queen is a narcissistic tyrant obsessed with preserving her physical beauty – at the behest of the entire land and its people. One day, the Queen’s mirror warns that Snow White is fairer than her which leads her to order Snow White’s death. Snow White escapes, and goes on an adventure to save herself and her kingdom with the help of the Huntsman, seven dwarves, and other fantastical allies.
The movie’s framework holds up fairly well. To be honest it was my biggest worry going into the movie – that its plot would break under bloating or simply feeling uninspired. Neither was the case, yet if it were to tip in one side or the other it definitely tips in the direction of a bloated plot. Some characters simply do not get the screentime they require, and with so many characters already it feels like some of them could have been taken out entirely without much effect. Trimming down of characters and irrelevant plot threads could have benefitted the movie greatly. It does, however, do a serviceable job establishing its own identity among fantasy epics. It’s refreshing to see a movie fully embrace two extremes – full-on hard fantasy and the more gritty, realistic and perhaps minimalist fantasy. It strikes a balance with both, so you will see great effects for trolls and fairies while still maintaining a gothic medieval feel. The plot moves forward at a mostly well-paced format, but unfortunately wavers here and there. Sometimes I wished the movie would linger on certain scenes longer – as it can help to have us dwell on great character moments or moments of visual beauty – an unfortunate side effect of a bloated script. While not a problem for the overall plot, the uneven pacing in some scenes can feel a bit rushed. Some questions in the plot went unanswered, but fortunately they aren’t important to the overall understanding of the story.
The only other major issue with the movie is acting. Kristen Stewart as Snow White was an odd choice. Not to say her performance is bad in this film, but it is awkward at points. In some moments she does very well but in others she seems uninspired. It is hard to see her as the titular character instead of just Kristen Stewart in those instances; and in those scenes it feels like she’s as much part of the audience as we are – just with more of a one-note “concerned” facial expression for every instance. While not a breaking element, it leaves more to be desired from her, especially in interactions with others. Chris Hemsworth was much more enjoyable as the Huntsman, and honestly I think his performance along with Theron’s far outbalance any flaws in Kristen Stewart’s acting. The chemistry between the two protagonists seems one sided, as Chris Hemsworth acts well on his side of the equation, but Stewart unfortunately does not reciprocate. Essentially this makes a potential major relationship fall flat. However, Theron completely inhibits the role as the evil Queen. While she may overact in some scenes, she does an excellent job playing a sinister, abusive, powerful and surprisingly tragic villain.
The highlight of the movie is definitely its visual design, cinematography, and action. The only downside in this area is that this movie will definitely remind you of other great movies from long ago. Obvious inspiration from “The Lord of the Rings” echoes while watching, as it even features the same faraway montage shots of the group traversing grand vistas. If you can get passed these obvious influences, it does establish a vibrant and inspired design. That is one of the greatest aspects of the movie – the fact that the director can do so much in a single scene to really draw you in. He does an excellent job using color and pattern contrasts to a striking and awesome effect. There are some great moments that have no action yet are just as enthralling to watch, something difficult to do with just visual style. A great use of color really brings out the themes of the movie – the grey monotones and gothic style bring out a sense of dread and annihilation throughout the Queen’s empire. She truly is a force of parasitism – entirely vampiric in the way she sucks the life out of the entire land around her. She is the embodiment of self-obsession with physical beauty – a force so vain and narcissistic that she acts as a black hole absorbing all beauty around her. Sanders plays this against the vibrant designs of the forest in which Snow White spends most of her time. Alive, colorful, and natural – she embodies natural beauty – and in doing so she seemingly commands nature itself.
Sanders’ directing ability really shines in scenes of action. Instead of lazy overuse of “shaky-cam” to get the effect, he balances it with just enough on-screen choreography so you get intensity without confusion. The movie is truly action packed with familiar medieval-esque battles throughout, but highlighted by truly amazing shots of action and use of fantastical effects. There were a couple instances of eye-rolling wonder at battlefield tactics, but that gets into too much of an area of nitpicking. The action really is one of the best aspects of the movie, and these scenes by themselves outweigh many already mentioned issues.
Overall, “Snow White and the Huntsman” has proven to be a great initial outing for director Rupert Sanders. There are some issues in the flick – namely some instances of uneven pacing and acting issues which leaves some potential to be desired. But even these seemingly huge issues are overshadowed by an excellent use of visual design, cinematography, and action. The plot may be merely serviceable overall, and the movie will remind you of great films long past; yet it still happens to triumph in its main goal – to retell the classic fairly tale of Snow White in the modern Blockbuster sense. In a summer packed with science fiction and superheroes, an entertaining fantasy movie fits in quite nicely.
The movie retells the familiar story of Snow White (Kristen Stewart), likely popularized by Disney’s adaptation for most of us. Yet, the film takes more influence from the original fairy tale with the additional focus on the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Snow White grows up in a kingdom under the rule of her wicked step-mother, Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron). The Queen is a narcissistic tyrant obsessed with preserving her physical beauty – at the behest of the entire land and its people. One day, the Queen’s mirror warns that Snow White is fairer than her which leads her to order Snow White’s death. Snow White escapes, and goes on an adventure to save herself and her kingdom with the help of the Huntsman, seven dwarves, and other fantastical allies.
The movie’s framework holds up fairly well. To be honest it was my biggest worry going into the movie – that its plot would break under bloating or simply feeling uninspired. Neither was the case, yet if it were to tip in one side or the other it definitely tips in the direction of a bloated plot. Some characters simply do not get the screentime they require, and with so many characters already it feels like some of them could have been taken out entirely without much effect. Trimming down of characters and irrelevant plot threads could have benefitted the movie greatly. It does, however, do a serviceable job establishing its own identity among fantasy epics. It’s refreshing to see a movie fully embrace two extremes – full-on hard fantasy and the more gritty, realistic and perhaps minimalist fantasy. It strikes a balance with both, so you will see great effects for trolls and fairies while still maintaining a gothic medieval feel. The plot moves forward at a mostly well-paced format, but unfortunately wavers here and there. Sometimes I wished the movie would linger on certain scenes longer – as it can help to have us dwell on great character moments or moments of visual beauty – an unfortunate side effect of a bloated script. While not a problem for the overall plot, the uneven pacing in some scenes can feel a bit rushed. Some questions in the plot went unanswered, but fortunately they aren’t important to the overall understanding of the story.
The only other major issue with the movie is acting. Kristen Stewart as Snow White was an odd choice. Not to say her performance is bad in this film, but it is awkward at points. In some moments she does very well but in others she seems uninspired. It is hard to see her as the titular character instead of just Kristen Stewart in those instances; and in those scenes it feels like she’s as much part of the audience as we are – just with more of a one-note “concerned” facial expression for every instance. While not a breaking element, it leaves more to be desired from her, especially in interactions with others. Chris Hemsworth was much more enjoyable as the Huntsman, and honestly I think his performance along with Theron’s far outbalance any flaws in Kristen Stewart’s acting. The chemistry between the two protagonists seems one sided, as Chris Hemsworth acts well on his side of the equation, but Stewart unfortunately does not reciprocate. Essentially this makes a potential major relationship fall flat. However, Theron completely inhibits the role as the evil Queen. While she may overact in some scenes, she does an excellent job playing a sinister, abusive, powerful and surprisingly tragic villain.
The highlight of the movie is definitely its visual design, cinematography, and action. The only downside in this area is that this movie will definitely remind you of other great movies from long ago. Obvious inspiration from “The Lord of the Rings” echoes while watching, as it even features the same faraway montage shots of the group traversing grand vistas. If you can get passed these obvious influences, it does establish a vibrant and inspired design. That is one of the greatest aspects of the movie – the fact that the director can do so much in a single scene to really draw you in. He does an excellent job using color and pattern contrasts to a striking and awesome effect. There are some great moments that have no action yet are just as enthralling to watch, something difficult to do with just visual style. A great use of color really brings out the themes of the movie – the grey monotones and gothic style bring out a sense of dread and annihilation throughout the Queen’s empire. She truly is a force of parasitism – entirely vampiric in the way she sucks the life out of the entire land around her. She is the embodiment of self-obsession with physical beauty – a force so vain and narcissistic that she acts as a black hole absorbing all beauty around her. Sanders plays this against the vibrant designs of the forest in which Snow White spends most of her time. Alive, colorful, and natural – she embodies natural beauty – and in doing so she seemingly commands nature itself.
Sanders’ directing ability really shines in scenes of action. Instead of lazy overuse of “shaky-cam” to get the effect, he balances it with just enough on-screen choreography so you get intensity without confusion. The movie is truly action packed with familiar medieval-esque battles throughout, but highlighted by truly amazing shots of action and use of fantastical effects. There were a couple instances of eye-rolling wonder at battlefield tactics, but that gets into too much of an area of nitpicking. The action really is one of the best aspects of the movie, and these scenes by themselves outweigh many already mentioned issues.
Overall, “Snow White and the Huntsman” has proven to be a great initial outing for director Rupert Sanders. There are some issues in the flick – namely some instances of uneven pacing and acting issues which leaves some potential to be desired. But even these seemingly huge issues are overshadowed by an excellent use of visual design, cinematography, and action. The plot may be merely serviceable overall, and the movie will remind you of great films long past; yet it still happens to triumph in its main goal – to retell the classic fairly tale of Snow White in the modern Blockbuster sense. In a summer packed with science fiction and superheroes, an entertaining fantasy movie fits in quite nicely.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm not really sure where to start with this so settle in for a ride. I've tried to avoid major spoilers but some of the things I've written might give away or hint at events in Endgame so please don't read this until you've seen it at the cinema.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.