Search
Search results
Google Allo
Social Networking
App
Google Allo is a smart messaging app that helps you say more and do more. Express yourself better...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Cinematic Redbull
Up until a week ago, I was really looking forward to this film. Mad Max as a series has a criminally underestimated impact on our pop culture psyche thanks to its unique aesthetic. Everyone now knows exactly what they want to do in the event of the apocalypse; strap dustbin lids and S&M gear to our bodies.
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Star is Born starts when rock star Jackson (Cooper) looking for another drink stumbles into a drag bar, he sees working class woman Ally (Gaga) perform on stage, instantly he knows she has talent and learns more about her, bring her on stage for his latest show.
When Ally becomes an overnight success story the two-start performing together which only attractions more record labels who come calling to make Ally the next biggest star in the music world which soon sees her become more famous than Jack whose own problems could bring an end to his fame.
Thoughts on A Star is Born
Characters – Ally is a hotel worker that performers in a local drag bar after being rejected by record labels before. She meets rock star Jack who encourages to perform, first with him and soon the world wants to see her become the biggest star in the music industry. Ally must learn about the world around her, one she has never stepped foot in before or become consumed by it. Jack is the rock star who sees Ally believing she could become a star, he offers her a chance to perform which sets her on her way, Jack however has his own problems with drinks and drugs would could finish his own career just as Ally’s is about to take off. These two characters do take centre stage for the most part, we do see family that support as well as friends who see their friend get to levels of fame they never thought they could.
Performances – Bradley Cooper gives one of his best performances of his career here, not just on front of the camera, but behind it too. He manages to make us feel like his problems are real, which are problem many musicians could be facing. Lady Gaga was always going to be a wonderful choice for the singing side of the film, it was the acting side people wanted to see if she could handle, she does a good job through the film managing to show the bond the two have throughout the film. the supporting cast are good without needing to be challenged to reach the levels of the lead two actors.
Story – The story follows the rise of a musician after being discovered by an alcoholic rock star. We know this is a remake, so we know this had been modernised to tell an old story which deals with the modern problems of fame for musicians. We see how one side is taking every opportunity thrown her way and the other than has been watching his career fade away because of alcoholism and drug abuse. This is a great story of how important taking chances are and how success can ruin lives. The story does however become slightly slow paced because we just jump into a song to cover up anything that needs to be talked about more.
Music/Romance – The music in the film is good with songs that Gaga performs with ease. The romance between the two shows how they can support each other through the lives they didn’t know they would be going through.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show the journey that Ally takes from the small venue to awards ceremony showing here rise to fame.
Scene of the Movie – First song.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The rise feels too fast.
Final Thoughts – This is a great look at how the fame can affect lives in the music industry, we get strong performances from Cooper and Gaga who both shine through the film.
Overall: Great Music based movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/01/01/abc-film-challenge-best-of-2018-a-a-star-is-born-2018/
When Ally becomes an overnight success story the two-start performing together which only attractions more record labels who come calling to make Ally the next biggest star in the music world which soon sees her become more famous than Jack whose own problems could bring an end to his fame.
Thoughts on A Star is Born
Characters – Ally is a hotel worker that performers in a local drag bar after being rejected by record labels before. She meets rock star Jack who encourages to perform, first with him and soon the world wants to see her become the biggest star in the music industry. Ally must learn about the world around her, one she has never stepped foot in before or become consumed by it. Jack is the rock star who sees Ally believing she could become a star, he offers her a chance to perform which sets her on her way, Jack however has his own problems with drinks and drugs would could finish his own career just as Ally’s is about to take off. These two characters do take centre stage for the most part, we do see family that support as well as friends who see their friend get to levels of fame they never thought they could.
Performances – Bradley Cooper gives one of his best performances of his career here, not just on front of the camera, but behind it too. He manages to make us feel like his problems are real, which are problem many musicians could be facing. Lady Gaga was always going to be a wonderful choice for the singing side of the film, it was the acting side people wanted to see if she could handle, she does a good job through the film managing to show the bond the two have throughout the film. the supporting cast are good without needing to be challenged to reach the levels of the lead two actors.
Story – The story follows the rise of a musician after being discovered by an alcoholic rock star. We know this is a remake, so we know this had been modernised to tell an old story which deals with the modern problems of fame for musicians. We see how one side is taking every opportunity thrown her way and the other than has been watching his career fade away because of alcoholism and drug abuse. This is a great story of how important taking chances are and how success can ruin lives. The story does however become slightly slow paced because we just jump into a song to cover up anything that needs to be talked about more.
Music/Romance – The music in the film is good with songs that Gaga performs with ease. The romance between the two shows how they can support each other through the lives they didn’t know they would be going through.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show the journey that Ally takes from the small venue to awards ceremony showing here rise to fame.
Scene of the Movie – First song.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The rise feels too fast.
Final Thoughts – This is a great look at how the fame can affect lives in the music industry, we get strong performances from Cooper and Gaga who both shine through the film.
Overall: Great Music based movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/01/01/abc-film-challenge-best-of-2018-a-a-star-is-born-2018/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
May 17, 2020
Thinly written and directed
A rainy weekend is the perfect time to catch up with films that I meant to see in the Cineplex, but just didn't get around to it. So it was with some excitement that I flipped on the "Women Run The Mafia" movie THE KITCHEN from 2019.
I should have watched 21 BRIDGES.
Based on the DC/VERTIGO graphic novel, THE KITCHEN is set in the late 1970's in NYC and offers up the "what if" scenario of 3 women that take over the Mafia. A pretty interesting premise that could have been the GODFATHER or GOODFELLA's of the day (or...at least...another WIDOWS from 2018), but instead THE KITCHEN falls flat like the all female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few year's ago.
A star of that Ghostbuster's film, Melissa McCarthy leads the cast as Kathy Brennan, the wife of a mobster who was sent to jail and becomes the leader of the group. McCarthy has shown that she has the "chops" as an actress to tackle this role, but she never really gets there. There is no real depth or emotional stakes to her character throughout the course of the film. The screenplay (and McCarthy's performance) does pick up at the end, but by then, it is too little, too late. Also not fairing well is comedienne Tiffany Hadish as Ruby O'Carroll - an African-American female trying to dominate in a predominately white male world. Again...this character had potential, but the writing and, quite frankly, Hadish's performance just didn't quite succeed.
What did succeed is the always excellent Elisabeth Moss as the 3rd part of this triumvirate. Her "mousy, abused housewife turned stone cold killer" was interesting to watch - especially when paired with Domhnall Gleeson's assassin about 1/2 way through the movie. I wanted to watch a movie with these 2 criminals on the run.
I've mentioned the weak writing as part the issue here, so I'll have to mention first time Veteran Writer and first-time Director Andrea Berloff as the main culprit here. She wrote STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON so she has it in her, but here, the screenplay and characterizations are "thin". Perhaps, a good Director could have made something out of this, but she also made her Directing debut with this film, so it just didn't work well enough.
This isn't a bad film, it just isn't a very good - or very interesting - one.
Letter Grade B- (for the Moss/Gleeson portion of this film)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I should have watched 21 BRIDGES.
Based on the DC/VERTIGO graphic novel, THE KITCHEN is set in the late 1970's in NYC and offers up the "what if" scenario of 3 women that take over the Mafia. A pretty interesting premise that could have been the GODFATHER or GOODFELLA's of the day (or...at least...another WIDOWS from 2018), but instead THE KITCHEN falls flat like the all female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few year's ago.
A star of that Ghostbuster's film, Melissa McCarthy leads the cast as Kathy Brennan, the wife of a mobster who was sent to jail and becomes the leader of the group. McCarthy has shown that she has the "chops" as an actress to tackle this role, but she never really gets there. There is no real depth or emotional stakes to her character throughout the course of the film. The screenplay (and McCarthy's performance) does pick up at the end, but by then, it is too little, too late. Also not fairing well is comedienne Tiffany Hadish as Ruby O'Carroll - an African-American female trying to dominate in a predominately white male world. Again...this character had potential, but the writing and, quite frankly, Hadish's performance just didn't quite succeed.
What did succeed is the always excellent Elisabeth Moss as the 3rd part of this triumvirate. Her "mousy, abused housewife turned stone cold killer" was interesting to watch - especially when paired with Domhnall Gleeson's assassin about 1/2 way through the movie. I wanted to watch a movie with these 2 criminals on the run.
I've mentioned the weak writing as part the issue here, so I'll have to mention first time Veteran Writer and first-time Director Andrea Berloff as the main culprit here. She wrote STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON so she has it in her, but here, the screenplay and characterizations are "thin". Perhaps, a good Director could have made something out of this, but she also made her Directing debut with this film, so it just didn't work well enough.
This isn't a bad film, it just isn't a very good - or very interesting - one.
Letter Grade B- (for the Moss/Gleeson portion of this film)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated In Time (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I wanted to like this, I really did, but it was a film that failed to go anywhere, and time just slipped away to the end credits. Justin Timberlake is a likeable character, and more favourable as an actor I would say, although he’s certainly got a decent voice as we all know – here, he was singing a bit flat.
He’s immersed in a world where time is literally money, where people are engineered to live one more year after twenty-five. Unless you’re part of the rich elite who enjoy an elongated life of decade after decade, living in another time zone across the city or you’re scrapping for your life in the slums begging for every last second.
The film has a unique plot, but it’s executed poorly, Timberlake’s character Will Salas is implicated in the death of a rich socialite with a lot of time on his hands, of which he gives to Will, then ends his life rather abruptly with nothing more than a ‘don’t waste my time’ scrawled on a window pane.
There may be more to this than meets the eye, but it’s never really delved into with any great conviction. So we’re left with Salas on the run from Raymond Leon (Murphy) a timekeeper with a past, of which is again never touched on too much. Salas has one more trick up his sleeve and takes hostage Sylvia Weis (Seyfried) the daughter of a wealthy businessman, and never was there more a wasted character.
The pair then turn into some kind of Bonnie and Clyde, or Robin Hood and Maid Marian, stealing time from the rich and giving to the poor.
This film was the perfect platform for some potentially futuristic action, but director Andrew Niccol is happy enough to choreograph a few abject car chases and a few punches thrown. Instead we’re left with the poor on screen romance of Salas and Weis which in all honesty is not in the least bit convincing, after a while you’ll be looking down at your own watch and the time ticking past.
Niccol has left a huge amount of questions unanswered, such as why was time replaced by money in the first place? Quite a big question in the grand scheme of things, maybe he just ran out of time?
He’s immersed in a world where time is literally money, where people are engineered to live one more year after twenty-five. Unless you’re part of the rich elite who enjoy an elongated life of decade after decade, living in another time zone across the city or you’re scrapping for your life in the slums begging for every last second.
The film has a unique plot, but it’s executed poorly, Timberlake’s character Will Salas is implicated in the death of a rich socialite with a lot of time on his hands, of which he gives to Will, then ends his life rather abruptly with nothing more than a ‘don’t waste my time’ scrawled on a window pane.
There may be more to this than meets the eye, but it’s never really delved into with any great conviction. So we’re left with Salas on the run from Raymond Leon (Murphy) a timekeeper with a past, of which is again never touched on too much. Salas has one more trick up his sleeve and takes hostage Sylvia Weis (Seyfried) the daughter of a wealthy businessman, and never was there more a wasted character.
The pair then turn into some kind of Bonnie and Clyde, or Robin Hood and Maid Marian, stealing time from the rich and giving to the poor.
This film was the perfect platform for some potentially futuristic action, but director Andrew Niccol is happy enough to choreograph a few abject car chases and a few punches thrown. Instead we’re left with the poor on screen romance of Salas and Weis which in all honesty is not in the least bit convincing, after a while you’ll be looking down at your own watch and the time ticking past.
Niccol has left a huge amount of questions unanswered, such as why was time replaced by money in the first place? Quite a big question in the grand scheme of things, maybe he just ran out of time?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Some Darwin award winners.
Man, I personally found this one to be an exceedingly uncomfortable watch.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
postapocalypticplayground (27 KP) rated Six of Crows in Books
Jan 9, 2018
Every so often a book will come along which will make you re-evaluate all the 5 star reviews you have given in the past. Six of Crows for me is that book. Set in Leigh Bardugo's "Grishaverse" it is the tale of an impossible heist where the rewards far outweigh the risk. Our main protagonist Kaz Brekker is fast becoming a legend in the bowels of the Barrel, the criminal underworld of Ketterdam. He is young, but a driven and ruthless trickster, with a team to match. They are tasked with breaching the heavily fortified Ice Court to rescue a scientist held hostage. It's a feat which has never been achieved, but with the promise of a reward that will take Kaz and his team out of the bottom of the Barrel it's risk he's willing to take, after all, just how many things could go wrong?
Six of Crows is told in multiple points of view, which can sometimes be confusing for me but there were only a couple of occasions that I found myself flipping back to the start of the chapter to remind myself who in the limelight. I felt that this was a style that worked really well with this story as the main six often found themselves in different places with different tasks and this way of storytelling allowed it all to come seamlessly together. Whilst it does majorly involve the Grisha, I found it was a world that I easily fell into pace with, without having read the Grisha Trilogy first. I'm told there are a number of nods which are present but I never felt lost or like I was missing out.
The characters are fantastic, my favourite by far was Inej, the wraith. Rescued from the oldest profession by Kaz, she is a force to be reckoned with, a silent assassin. There are no walls she can't climb or secrets she can't glean. I felt most for her, what she had been through before joining with Kaz and how it had driven her to become who she now was. I loved the sense of purpose that grew within her throughout the story. The others too though all have their stories to tell, a proper band of misfits all with their secrets and terrible histories that have shaped them. It's hard to remember that they are all teenagers, but then that makes them easier to underestimate.
The audacity behind Kaz's plan is immeasurable and it is through this that I am just in awe of the writing. At just shy of 500 pages there was not a single moment of rest for the reader, I felt on edge every step of the way. I felt fear for these characters, trepidation but also the good humour that only a rag tag bunch of forgotten teenagers could have in the circumstances they faced. I simply did not want to put this down, at all. The last of the six sections I tried to slow down as I knew it was coming to an end but it pulled me in and wouldn't let go. It's rare for a book to leave me breathless, but this one really did. It's the first of a duology and I can't wait for pay day to roll round so I can pick up Crooked Kingdom. If I could give this six stars I would, It's a truly amazing read and If you're a YA fantasy fan you will not be disappointed!
Six of Crows is told in multiple points of view, which can sometimes be confusing for me but there were only a couple of occasions that I found myself flipping back to the start of the chapter to remind myself who in the limelight. I felt that this was a style that worked really well with this story as the main six often found themselves in different places with different tasks and this way of storytelling allowed it all to come seamlessly together. Whilst it does majorly involve the Grisha, I found it was a world that I easily fell into pace with, without having read the Grisha Trilogy first. I'm told there are a number of nods which are present but I never felt lost or like I was missing out.
The characters are fantastic, my favourite by far was Inej, the wraith. Rescued from the oldest profession by Kaz, she is a force to be reckoned with, a silent assassin. There are no walls she can't climb or secrets she can't glean. I felt most for her, what she had been through before joining with Kaz and how it had driven her to become who she now was. I loved the sense of purpose that grew within her throughout the story. The others too though all have their stories to tell, a proper band of misfits all with their secrets and terrible histories that have shaped them. It's hard to remember that they are all teenagers, but then that makes them easier to underestimate.
The audacity behind Kaz's plan is immeasurable and it is through this that I am just in awe of the writing. At just shy of 500 pages there was not a single moment of rest for the reader, I felt on edge every step of the way. I felt fear for these characters, trepidation but also the good humour that only a rag tag bunch of forgotten teenagers could have in the circumstances they faced. I simply did not want to put this down, at all. The last of the six sections I tried to slow down as I knew it was coming to an end but it pulled me in and wouldn't let go. It's rare for a book to leave me breathless, but this one really did. It's the first of a duology and I can't wait for pay day to roll round so I can pick up Crooked Kingdom. If I could give this six stars I would, It's a truly amazing read and If you're a YA fantasy fan you will not be disappointed!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
Better Than I Expected
Over the years, there has been "cash grab" sequels thrown out onto an unsuspecting public years after the beloved original film has settled into the warm memories of time. Films like THE TWO JAKES (sequel to CHINATOWN), THE EVENING STAR (sequel to TERMS OF ENDEARMENT) and, most notably, THE GODFATHER III (sequel to the first two, terrific GODFATHER films) all were filmed more than 10 years after the original classic and quickly died at the box office.
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine in Books
Dec 24, 2017
funny (3 more)
heartbreaking
tender
beautiful
Eleanor Oliphant leads a simple, albeit lonely, life. Up in the morning, head to work, and heads down at the office (with a solo break for lunch and the crossword). She spends her evenings and weekends alone--typically with a book, the TV, and a lot vodka. Every Wednesday evening, she speaks on the phone with her mother (Mummy)-- always a painful conversation as her mother is judgemental and exacting. Then one day, Eleanor and Raymond, the slightly oafish IT guy from her office, save the elderly Sammy, who has fallen on the sidewalk. The act turns out to change Eleanor's life--bringing her into Sammy's life and that of his boisterous family--and involving her more with Raymond, as well. Suddenly, it's almost as if Eleanor and Raymond are friends and Eleanor isn't completely lonely anymore. But can her friendship with Raymond erase the sadness in her life?
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender. My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful.
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. One of my favorites so far this year.
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender. My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful.
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. One of my favorites so far this year.