Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated You Decide in Tabletop Games
Nov 12, 2020
What game do you think of when I mention, “roll and move?” For me, it’s Candy Land. Perhaps most kids’ first foray into board games at all. To be honest, it’s not even a roll and move, it’s more a flip and move, but they are usually all the same anyway: roll/flip/spin something and then move your pawn. Sometimes there will be something on the spot to “do” and sometimes you just try to race to the finish. So when the publisher and I were chatting about You Decide and they mentioned it was a family-style roll and move game, I had my doubts, but I wanted to try it out. How does this first game from new publisher Davidson Games fare? Let’s find out and You Decide.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
When it is a director’s second, or sophomore movie, if you like, there is a lot of unfair pressure that finds people comparing the new work to the first one. Especially if that first work has set you up as the saviour of a particular genre, as was the case with Jordan Peele. Get Out was an excellent film for its type – a breath of fresh air, so they say, that subverted what a modern horror movie is and can be.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Belfort in Tabletop Games
Jun 10, 2021
I don’t know if I have ever just come out and said it before, but I love worker placement games. I just adore the mechanic and if a game includes it, the chances of me liking it are quite good. Belfort is an older game now (almost 10 years old!) so does it still excite and deliver the goods when so many other great worker placement games have been produced since it debuted?
The winner of Belfort is the player who, at the end of seven rounds of play, earns the most Victory Points (VP). Players will earn victory points by having majority of buildings claimed within the five districts of Belfort. To claim a building, players will be shrewdly sending workers to mines, the forest, and various buildings and guilds of Belfort to recruit more workers and earn the ever-important buck to finance these buildings.
Setup is kind of a beast, so I won’t detail everything here. Similarly, I will not be detailing every rule in the book, as there are just too many. But, I will give a general flow of the game so readers may be able to decide if this is a game they must add to their collections.
Once the game is setup and player order is established, each player will complete their entire turn in player order. Players will have many choices available to them on their turn: place workers on various buildings they had previously built, place workers on guild tiles to access powerful abilities, recruit more workers, hire gnomes to unlock certain portions of buildings, gaining more building plans, visiting the trading post to exchange resources, transform normal workers into master workers, and lastly assign workers to gather resources (wood, stone, metal, and gold) in the forests and mines surrounding Belfort.
At certain times during the game players will score their efforts to move up (and down) the VP track. It is at the end of the third and final scoring that the game ends and a victor is crowned.
While this is a very broad and general description of the rules of Belfort, each option listed contains layers of strategic depth that, like all good worker placement games, limits the players’ abilities to go everywhere they like as workers are in limited supply. For those gamers who have never played a worker placement game, this is both excruciating and delicious.
Components. This game boasts way too many components for the box in which is barely contained. I say this with one complete expansion and the promo set of guild tiles included, and the latest expansion on the way. All of the components in this game are stellar. The cards are great. All the cardboard play mats and tiles are great. The worker components and all the wooden bits are super great, AND I didn’t even mind having to sticker my own workers. The best part about the components in Belfort is definitely the art. The team designed an excellent art style for this one, and seeing little hidden jokes within the art makes it all that more interesting to me.
So DOES it hold up after all these years? I think it does. Though I would not consider Belfort an “easy” game to learn, teach, or play at first, after a few rounds players generally catch on and begin to really weigh all their options. This is a great game for think-hungry gamers. This game is conversely a bane for all AP-prone players. I fall right in the middle, but lean towards faster play at the expense of my final score. But that’s the beauty of Belfort and of all worker placement games: there are so many choices that one could easily just try to play so that they visit every location at least once. Now, by doing this the players are also ignoring the true goal of the game: area majority within the districts of Belfort, but if a player isn’t as aggressive or victory-crazed, that’s not a bad thing.
For me, I love Belfort. A lot. Unfortunately for me, during this crazy COVID time, I will not be able to play it much, and was lucky to be able to pull it out recently again after not playing it for several years. But, I always look upon the box fondly and wish I could just bust it out any time I want. Maybe someday someone will create solo rules for it and I can enjoy it that way. My wife is not a fan, but also she’s not really a fan of games that are longer than an hour generally. I cherish this game, and am quite happy to have it in my collection.
The winner of Belfort is the player who, at the end of seven rounds of play, earns the most Victory Points (VP). Players will earn victory points by having majority of buildings claimed within the five districts of Belfort. To claim a building, players will be shrewdly sending workers to mines, the forest, and various buildings and guilds of Belfort to recruit more workers and earn the ever-important buck to finance these buildings.
Setup is kind of a beast, so I won’t detail everything here. Similarly, I will not be detailing every rule in the book, as there are just too many. But, I will give a general flow of the game so readers may be able to decide if this is a game they must add to their collections.
Once the game is setup and player order is established, each player will complete their entire turn in player order. Players will have many choices available to them on their turn: place workers on various buildings they had previously built, place workers on guild tiles to access powerful abilities, recruit more workers, hire gnomes to unlock certain portions of buildings, gaining more building plans, visiting the trading post to exchange resources, transform normal workers into master workers, and lastly assign workers to gather resources (wood, stone, metal, and gold) in the forests and mines surrounding Belfort.
At certain times during the game players will score their efforts to move up (and down) the VP track. It is at the end of the third and final scoring that the game ends and a victor is crowned.
While this is a very broad and general description of the rules of Belfort, each option listed contains layers of strategic depth that, like all good worker placement games, limits the players’ abilities to go everywhere they like as workers are in limited supply. For those gamers who have never played a worker placement game, this is both excruciating and delicious.
Components. This game boasts way too many components for the box in which is barely contained. I say this with one complete expansion and the promo set of guild tiles included, and the latest expansion on the way. All of the components in this game are stellar. The cards are great. All the cardboard play mats and tiles are great. The worker components and all the wooden bits are super great, AND I didn’t even mind having to sticker my own workers. The best part about the components in Belfort is definitely the art. The team designed an excellent art style for this one, and seeing little hidden jokes within the art makes it all that more interesting to me.
So DOES it hold up after all these years? I think it does. Though I would not consider Belfort an “easy” game to learn, teach, or play at first, after a few rounds players generally catch on and begin to really weigh all their options. This is a great game for think-hungry gamers. This game is conversely a bane for all AP-prone players. I fall right in the middle, but lean towards faster play at the expense of my final score. But that’s the beauty of Belfort and of all worker placement games: there are so many choices that one could easily just try to play so that they visit every location at least once. Now, by doing this the players are also ignoring the true goal of the game: area majority within the districts of Belfort, but if a player isn’t as aggressive or victory-crazed, that’s not a bad thing.
For me, I love Belfort. A lot. Unfortunately for me, during this crazy COVID time, I will not be able to play it much, and was lucky to be able to pull it out recently again after not playing it for several years. But, I always look upon the box fondly and wish I could just bust it out any time I want. Maybe someday someone will create solo rules for it and I can enjoy it that way. My wife is not a fan, but also she’s not really a fan of games that are longer than an hour generally. I cherish this game, and am quite happy to have it in my collection.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Remnants in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Historical Fiction
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.26/5 stars
My rating: 3/5 stars
Danny Pulbrook is a handsome and rebellious young man. Born the bastard son of a minor royal and orphaned at birth he is determined to find a new life far beyond his “pre-ordained oblivion”. His only way out – a forced enlistment into the army brings him to an inevitable confrontation with his own demons in the cauldron of the first world war.
Rose Quayle is a beautiful and confident hazel-eyed housemaid who, like her mother and her mother’s mother is employed in service at Meaford House – an expansive vice-regal estate near Tunbridge Wells. Like Danny she longs for a life beyond the tyranny of the rigid class system that defines her humble destiny.
Their chance meeting becomes the catalyst that changes both of their lives forever.
The Remnants is like a fixer upper. It’s unpolished and a bit of a hot mess, but you can still see the potential. Unfortunately, The Remnants was published before it got the TLC it deserved.
Not only is the text plagued with typos and missing punctuation, but there are too many storylines and character to keep straight. It’s a hot mess that could have been amazing.
The story starts out on a seemingly inconsequential day, with two minor characters talking. Yes, minor. They’re barely in the story but they make up the opening scene that eventually introduces Rose as a young, innocent girl going on her first car ride. So far there’s promise. After all, the boggy description will clear up when the story gets going, right?
I wish.
But it does pick up when we meet lovable bad boy Danny. Straight from an orphanage and now working at a general store, he’s a troublemaker and has never known love of any sort. He’s convinced he’s unlovable. Perfect for a love interest. I do have a thing for the bad boys. Give them a vulnerable side and I’m practically putty.
Rose and Danny have an excellently sweet and innocent chance encounter that clashes with the darkness in the rest of the book. Actually, there’s no foreshadowing at all that things will go so horribly awry when they met, or how dark most of the book is.
But dark it is. Danny goes off to fight in India, leaving Rose behind, but promising to still see her. After realizing he will die unless he deserts the army, he runs away and Rose goes to live with him in Canada
Had this been split into two or three full-length novels with the first novel ending here, I would have liked it a lot. But instead this great beginning with Danny’s and Rose’s innocence isn’t given the full detail and development it deserves, instead being condensed to the beginning of the novel.
But unfortunately it gets worse. Because the story continues. With so many characters that it’s impossible to keep them straight.
Danny’s character takes a sharp left when he feels the need to go to war again, this time with the Canadian army. He and Rose had practically just found each other and now he’s going back to fight, and after he had almost died the last time? Yeah. That makes total sense. What is he, an addict all of a sudden?
The entire story goes in a whirlwind. Danny has such a steep character arc, from innocent teenaged boy to hardened veteran, it might as well be a character cliff. Rose, on the other hand, doesn’t have that much character to arc. She’s slightly more bitter by the end, but she had already been bitter in the beginning of the story. Her lack of character frustrates me to no end.
There are some good parts to this story, though. Rose’s experience in the workplace was well-written, as was the death of Grace, Danny’s girl on the side. His war buddy, Mitch, is an excellent character and funny as hell, even if he is a bit cliched. The dynamic between Danny and his comrades is actually very good and I wish I had seen more of that and less flowery description about the war atmosphere.
While this story is mildly entertaining, well-researched, and interesting, it’s not my favorite and I will definitely not be reading it again. What do you think? Does this book sound interesting to you?
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.26/5 stars
My rating: 3/5 stars
Danny Pulbrook is a handsome and rebellious young man. Born the bastard son of a minor royal and orphaned at birth he is determined to find a new life far beyond his “pre-ordained oblivion”. His only way out – a forced enlistment into the army brings him to an inevitable confrontation with his own demons in the cauldron of the first world war.
Rose Quayle is a beautiful and confident hazel-eyed housemaid who, like her mother and her mother’s mother is employed in service at Meaford House – an expansive vice-regal estate near Tunbridge Wells. Like Danny she longs for a life beyond the tyranny of the rigid class system that defines her humble destiny.
Their chance meeting becomes the catalyst that changes both of their lives forever.
The Remnants is like a fixer upper. It’s unpolished and a bit of a hot mess, but you can still see the potential. Unfortunately, The Remnants was published before it got the TLC it deserved.
Not only is the text plagued with typos and missing punctuation, but there are too many storylines and character to keep straight. It’s a hot mess that could have been amazing.
The story starts out on a seemingly inconsequential day, with two minor characters talking. Yes, minor. They’re barely in the story but they make up the opening scene that eventually introduces Rose as a young, innocent girl going on her first car ride. So far there’s promise. After all, the boggy description will clear up when the story gets going, right?
I wish.
But it does pick up when we meet lovable bad boy Danny. Straight from an orphanage and now working at a general store, he’s a troublemaker and has never known love of any sort. He’s convinced he’s unlovable. Perfect for a love interest. I do have a thing for the bad boys. Give them a vulnerable side and I’m practically putty.
Rose and Danny have an excellently sweet and innocent chance encounter that clashes with the darkness in the rest of the book. Actually, there’s no foreshadowing at all that things will go so horribly awry when they met, or how dark most of the book is.
But dark it is. Danny goes off to fight in India, leaving Rose behind, but promising to still see her. After realizing he will die unless he deserts the army, he runs away and Rose goes to live with him in Canada
Had this been split into two or three full-length novels with the first novel ending here, I would have liked it a lot. But instead this great beginning with Danny’s and Rose’s innocence isn’t given the full detail and development it deserves, instead being condensed to the beginning of the novel.
But unfortunately it gets worse. Because the story continues. With so many characters that it’s impossible to keep them straight.
Danny’s character takes a sharp left when he feels the need to go to war again, this time with the Canadian army. He and Rose had practically just found each other and now he’s going back to fight, and after he had almost died the last time? Yeah. That makes total sense. What is he, an addict all of a sudden?
The entire story goes in a whirlwind. Danny has such a steep character arc, from innocent teenaged boy to hardened veteran, it might as well be a character cliff. Rose, on the other hand, doesn’t have that much character to arc. She’s slightly more bitter by the end, but she had already been bitter in the beginning of the story. Her lack of character frustrates me to no end.
There are some good parts to this story, though. Rose’s experience in the workplace was well-written, as was the death of Grace, Danny’s girl on the side. His war buddy, Mitch, is an excellent character and funny as hell, even if he is a bit cliched. The dynamic between Danny and his comrades is actually very good and I wish I had seen more of that and less flowery description about the war atmosphere.
While this story is mildly entertaining, well-researched, and interesting, it’s not my favorite and I will definitely not be reading it again. What do you think? Does this book sound interesting to you?
Chinese Newspapers Plus - Chinese News Plus (by sunflowerapps)
News
App
中文新聞+：這款在多個國家最為暢銷的新聞程序現在提供中文版本。 報紙...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Greedy men + Dinosaurs = Lunch!
I’ve really had a rollercoaster of emotions on this one. As a general fan of dinosaurs running riot, since I saw the brilliant original in 1993, I was pretty disillusioned by the teaser trailer for this one: all over-the-top CGI. But as the lights dimmed and the Universal logo faded to ominous sonar sounds, the hairs stood up again and I thought J.A. Bayona (“A Monster Calls“) *might* deliver something really special here. Ultimately though, I left the theatre disappointed… but only slightly so.
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.