Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
DC gets it right
I’m not going to sit here and tell you that Wonder Woman is alright because it’s been directed by a woman, or that it’s the most progressive superhero film of the last decade. No, neither of those things are true.
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe – though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isn’t saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict that’s raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, it’s a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. It’s almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but he’s in the film far too much – not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anaya’s portrayal of “Dr Poison” aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the film’s climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, it’s 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Man’s Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003’s Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and we’re thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst it’s true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, she’s let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot – she’s much, much better than the film she is in, and that’s a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie… you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe – though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isn’t saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict that’s raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, it’s a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. It’s almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but he’s in the film far too much – not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anaya’s portrayal of “Dr Poison” aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the film’s climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, it’s 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Man’s Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003’s Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and we’re thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst it’s true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, she’s let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot – she’s much, much better than the film she is in, and that’s a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie… you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Altered (Crewel World, #2) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
First off, I don't think Altered would work as a stand alone novel, so therefore, I'd suggest reading Crewel first so as not to be too confused. Oh, and if you haven't read Crewel, this review may contain some spoilers for it.
I really enjoyed Crewel, the first book in this series. I'd been wanting to read Altered since I finished Crewel. While this book takes a different direction from Crewel, I still really enjoyed it.
I like the title. It suits the book rather well. Even the Earth in this book has been altered from the Earth we know.
I really love the cover! I love the photo off Adelice within the whole sand timer thing. Adelice is running on borrowed time, and the cover depicts this perfectly.
The world building was done fantastically! It is quite a different world then that of Arras. Yes, I know it takes place on Earth, but this is a post apocalyptic type Earth with a sort of alternate history. In fact, there is one famous figure from history who makes an appearance in Altered which I didn't expect.
The pacing was done really well, and I was instantly drawn back into Adelice's world. I never wanted to put the book down!
Again, the plot is very original. I was confused a little bit through out the book, but I think that was because it had been awhile since I had read Crewel (well over a year ago). I had to try to remember how Adelice can weave and her abilities. Saying that though, I did enjoy the whole plot throughout especially the whole alternate history take. The cliff hanger at the end of this book leave it open for another book in the seires (which I will be reading). There's also the whole love triangle with Jost and Eric again. With the last book, I was team Jost, but this book, I was team Eric!
Again, Albin does a fantastic job in writing well developed characters. Adelice feels like she's grown a lot emotionally in this book. She's more of a stronger female lead and less sarcastic in this book. Jost, to me, shows his true colors in Altered. We also get to learn more about Eric and his background. We are also introduced to another baddie in this book named Kincaid. Kincaid is more of a snake in the grass compared to Cormac who was an up front, in your face, sleazeball.
The dialogue is fantastic and never once feels awkward. I don't remember any swear words, and there is minor violence.
Overall, Altered is a much different book from its predecessor, but that's not a bad thing. There's more gritty, fast paced action as well as a whole new cast of characters.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who are into science fiction and post apocalyptic worlds.
<center><b>I'd give Altered (Crewel World #2) by Gennifer Albin a 4.75 out of 5.</b></center>
(I won this hardback book in a competition. I was not required to write a review).
First off, I don't think Altered would work as a stand alone novel, so therefore, I'd suggest reading Crewel first so as not to be too confused. Oh, and if you haven't read Crewel, this review may contain some spoilers for it.
I really enjoyed Crewel, the first book in this series. I'd been wanting to read Altered since I finished Crewel. While this book takes a different direction from Crewel, I still really enjoyed it.
I like the title. It suits the book rather well. Even the Earth in this book has been altered from the Earth we know.
I really love the cover! I love the photo off Adelice within the whole sand timer thing. Adelice is running on borrowed time, and the cover depicts this perfectly.
The world building was done fantastically! It is quite a different world then that of Arras. Yes, I know it takes place on Earth, but this is a post apocalyptic type Earth with a sort of alternate history. In fact, there is one famous figure from history who makes an appearance in Altered which I didn't expect.
The pacing was done really well, and I was instantly drawn back into Adelice's world. I never wanted to put the book down!
Again, the plot is very original. I was confused a little bit through out the book, but I think that was because it had been awhile since I had read Crewel (well over a year ago). I had to try to remember how Adelice can weave and her abilities. Saying that though, I did enjoy the whole plot throughout especially the whole alternate history take. The cliff hanger at the end of this book leave it open for another book in the seires (which I will be reading). There's also the whole love triangle with Jost and Eric again. With the last book, I was team Jost, but this book, I was team Eric!
Again, Albin does a fantastic job in writing well developed characters. Adelice feels like she's grown a lot emotionally in this book. She's more of a stronger female lead and less sarcastic in this book. Jost, to me, shows his true colors in Altered. We also get to learn more about Eric and his background. We are also introduced to another baddie in this book named Kincaid. Kincaid is more of a snake in the grass compared to Cormac who was an up front, in your face, sleazeball.
The dialogue is fantastic and never once feels awkward. I don't remember any swear words, and there is minor violence.
Overall, Altered is a much different book from its predecessor, but that's not a bad thing. There's more gritty, fast paced action as well as a whole new cast of characters.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who are into science fiction and post apocalyptic worlds.
<center><b>I'd give Altered (Crewel World #2) by Gennifer Albin a 4.75 out of 5.</b></center>
(I won this hardback book in a competition. I was not required to write a review).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Brave (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The digital wizards at Pixar have an incredible dossier of Academy award-winning animated films. Their latest film “Brave“, is a prime example of the bold new direction for the company behind such classics as “Finding Nemo“, “Toy Story“, “The Incredible’s“, and “Monsters, Inc.” just to name a few. This time out Scotland provides the setting for the animation masters to weave their magic, and they do in a splendid 3-D feast of sight, sound, and color that captures the breathtaking beauty of the Scottish Highlands.
For Princess Merida (Kelly Madonald), life is filled with joy and frustration. As the daughter to King Fergus (Billy Connolly), and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), she has to walk a fine line between the duties and expectation of her mother and her freewheeling lifestyle of daring and adventure. The young Princess is content to ride through the countryside astride her horse Angus, and perfect her already admirable archery skills.
When Merida learns that her parents have summoned the other major clans so that a worthy suitor can be chosen, Merida rebels openly at their plan and causes great embarrassment to her family during a competition. In a fit of rebellious anger, Merida rides into the woods, and comes upon a witch who promises to create for the young princess a spell that will forever change her destiny. Although not done out of malice, the spell has some on expected consequences that threatens the future of the kingdom as well as the safety of Merida’s family.
The film has some outstanding performances, not the least of which is Connolly, who was an absolute delight whenever his character was on screen. Supporting work by Craig Ferguson and Robbie Coltrane complement the leads well. Since my mother is a Scot, I am all-too-familiar with not only the history but culture of Scotland. I had been concerned when I first heard the project that it would play up on certain stereotypes and miss the true complexity and splendor of Scotland and its people, as well as it’s extremely rich history which is filled with numerous technical and literary achievements over the centuries.
Thankfully my concerns were allayed very early in the film not simply because of the amazing visual detail of the movie but also because of the lovable but quirky characters. The writers and animators managed to capture the very nature of the people and the culture, which is no easy thing in an animated film. Kudos for the casting of the mostly Scottish cast who played their roles with relish. I can honestly say hearing King Fergus address the clans brought to mind my aunts, uncles and cousins thanks to the distinct Scottish brogue. I especially liked the fact that when conflict erupted (of course) amongst even the best of friends, there are some very clever ways that laughs were gained without turning the characters into buffoons or being overly cute.
While the film plays it fairly safe with the story, Pixar’s first female heroine gives us a very fun and enjoyable tale that offers something for the entire family without talking down to the audience or having to resort to crude humor. A few scenes may be a bit intense for youngsters and while it will not be cited for any technological breakthroughs Brave, nonetheless, is highly entertaining.
For Princess Merida (Kelly Madonald), life is filled with joy and frustration. As the daughter to King Fergus (Billy Connolly), and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), she has to walk a fine line between the duties and expectation of her mother and her freewheeling lifestyle of daring and adventure. The young Princess is content to ride through the countryside astride her horse Angus, and perfect her already admirable archery skills.
When Merida learns that her parents have summoned the other major clans so that a worthy suitor can be chosen, Merida rebels openly at their plan and causes great embarrassment to her family during a competition. In a fit of rebellious anger, Merida rides into the woods, and comes upon a witch who promises to create for the young princess a spell that will forever change her destiny. Although not done out of malice, the spell has some on expected consequences that threatens the future of the kingdom as well as the safety of Merida’s family.
The film has some outstanding performances, not the least of which is Connolly, who was an absolute delight whenever his character was on screen. Supporting work by Craig Ferguson and Robbie Coltrane complement the leads well. Since my mother is a Scot, I am all-too-familiar with not only the history but culture of Scotland. I had been concerned when I first heard the project that it would play up on certain stereotypes and miss the true complexity and splendor of Scotland and its people, as well as it’s extremely rich history which is filled with numerous technical and literary achievements over the centuries.
Thankfully my concerns were allayed very early in the film not simply because of the amazing visual detail of the movie but also because of the lovable but quirky characters. The writers and animators managed to capture the very nature of the people and the culture, which is no easy thing in an animated film. Kudos for the casting of the mostly Scottish cast who played their roles with relish. I can honestly say hearing King Fergus address the clans brought to mind my aunts, uncles and cousins thanks to the distinct Scottish brogue. I especially liked the fact that when conflict erupted (of course) amongst even the best of friends, there are some very clever ways that laughs were gained without turning the characters into buffoons or being overly cute.
While the film plays it fairly safe with the story, Pixar’s first female heroine gives us a very fun and enjoyable tale that offers something for the entire family without talking down to the audience or having to resort to crude humor. A few scenes may be a bit intense for youngsters and while it will not be cited for any technological breakthroughs Brave, nonetheless, is highly entertaining.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Once and Future Witches in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Thank you to Netgalley for luring me in with this recommendation and the gorgeous cover art. Thank you to Alix E Harrow for providing such an amazing story for this ARC review. All the opinions expressed below are my own.
"Witches and women's rights. Suffrage and spells. They're both...a kind of power...the kind we're not allowed to have."
I'm not often drawn to books involving witches to be honest. I love an annual viewing of Hocus Pocus (who doesn't?!) but that is usually where the affinity ends.
If anything can change my nonchalance, I suspect it may be Alix E. Harrow. This is the first piece of work I have read by the Hugo award winning writer and I don’t need any tarot cards to predict it will not be the last. From the outset of The Once and Future Witches I was hooked: the worldbuilding alone is amazing; you can immediately picture the mills, avenues, squares and slums of New Salem as well as the mysterious tower that pulls our three main characters together.
The three Eastwood sisters themselves are another work of art. Juniper, Agnes and Bella are fierce, formidable women in wildly different ways. They are also flawed, stubborn and quite frankly, inspirational: by linking women’s rights and witchcraft this fantasy novel suddenly becomes more real and relatable to the modern female reader, despite being set in 1893. We empathise, sympathise and rage right alongside the Eastwood sisters on their quest for equality in a male-controlled world.
However, not even witches can act alone and the Eastwood sisters have an amazing cast of supporting characters surrounding them. Impressively, not a single one of these characters can be accused of being two-dimensional: the character development that Harrow has invested into this novel is incredible and must have taken so much work! From the Suffragette’s secretary to the skin-crawling villain to the women and men fighting (and witching) side by side; every single character is substantial and memorable. The sarcasm within Juniper for example is hilarious and even the traditional figures of the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone refuse to conform to stereotypes: I LOVED it!
The format of this novel is very clever and practically forbids you from becoming too comfortable by peppering the main story with “witch-tales”. These complement rather than distract from the storyline and also provide small changes that make you smile – such as the tales of the Sisters Grimm.
Do not be fooled though: the use of witch-tales does not prevent The Once and Future Witches from being an incredibly modern piece of writing. Topics covered include sexuality, gender identity, feminism, race as well as smashing the patriarchy: all interspersed with magic, betrayal and a hell of a lot of emotion.
I would however argue that some topics are slightly too mature for the novel to be considered YA, the description of torture and suggestions of sexual abuse probably push this book firmly into general/adult fantasy fiction novels.
The Once and Future Witches is a future bestseller in my opinion. This unique, powerful novel provides characters that you can’t help but empathise with; slow-burning, intense relationships; the trials and tribulations that come with sisterhood and plot twists at every turn.
This book will swallow you heart and soul, make you laugh, make you cry and leave you bereft at the end.
It is a must read!
"Witches and women's rights. Suffrage and spells. They're both...a kind of power...the kind we're not allowed to have."
I'm not often drawn to books involving witches to be honest. I love an annual viewing of Hocus Pocus (who doesn't?!) but that is usually where the affinity ends.
If anything can change my nonchalance, I suspect it may be Alix E. Harrow. This is the first piece of work I have read by the Hugo award winning writer and I don’t need any tarot cards to predict it will not be the last. From the outset of The Once and Future Witches I was hooked: the worldbuilding alone is amazing; you can immediately picture the mills, avenues, squares and slums of New Salem as well as the mysterious tower that pulls our three main characters together.
The three Eastwood sisters themselves are another work of art. Juniper, Agnes and Bella are fierce, formidable women in wildly different ways. They are also flawed, stubborn and quite frankly, inspirational: by linking women’s rights and witchcraft this fantasy novel suddenly becomes more real and relatable to the modern female reader, despite being set in 1893. We empathise, sympathise and rage right alongside the Eastwood sisters on their quest for equality in a male-controlled world.
However, not even witches can act alone and the Eastwood sisters have an amazing cast of supporting characters surrounding them. Impressively, not a single one of these characters can be accused of being two-dimensional: the character development that Harrow has invested into this novel is incredible and must have taken so much work! From the Suffragette’s secretary to the skin-crawling villain to the women and men fighting (and witching) side by side; every single character is substantial and memorable. The sarcasm within Juniper for example is hilarious and even the traditional figures of the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone refuse to conform to stereotypes: I LOVED it!
The format of this novel is very clever and practically forbids you from becoming too comfortable by peppering the main story with “witch-tales”. These complement rather than distract from the storyline and also provide small changes that make you smile – such as the tales of the Sisters Grimm.
Do not be fooled though: the use of witch-tales does not prevent The Once and Future Witches from being an incredibly modern piece of writing. Topics covered include sexuality, gender identity, feminism, race as well as smashing the patriarchy: all interspersed with magic, betrayal and a hell of a lot of emotion.
I would however argue that some topics are slightly too mature for the novel to be considered YA, the description of torture and suggestions of sexual abuse probably push this book firmly into general/adult fantasy fiction novels.
The Once and Future Witches is a future bestseller in my opinion. This unique, powerful novel provides characters that you can’t help but empathise with; slow-burning, intense relationships; the trials and tribulations that come with sisterhood and plot twists at every turn.
This book will swallow you heart and soul, make you laugh, make you cry and leave you bereft at the end.
It is a must read!
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Ms. Marvel: Volume 3: Crushed in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This review is really for the first three volumes, including this one.
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
Infinity Blade III
Games and Entertainment
4.0
Rate It
App
Join our new forums: https://www.epicgames.com/infinityblade/forums/ What the press is saying about...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bad Wigs aside it's really rather good
You could be forgiven for being rather sceptical walking into the cinema to see Aquaman, and it’s easy to see why. An uninspiring set of trailers preceded by the DCEU’s shall we say reluctance to resonate with audiences.
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.