Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into this expecting some good action and some decent graphics. I did not expect to find so much comedy. This was a real treat to watch.
There's just something about "seeing" The Predator when he's invisible that really hits the spot. It gets you on the edge of the seat and fills you with just the right sort of anxiety. Had someone tapped me on the shoulder during the first time that happened in the film I probably would have swung for them while wailing like a banshee.
Lots of actors that you'd recognise from other things and everyone has their own little quirk that works well together in the scenes. It didn't feel like any of the talent was underused, which can be an issue with people in bit parts.
Who knew that Predators had a sense of humour too?! I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a severed limb in such an ingenious way before.
One bit that I really enjoyed reminded me of Futurama. You win bonus nerdy points if you spot it too. It had me tittering away.
There are excellent characters. Genuinely can't think of any that I didn't like in some way. Rory is brilliant in this, great acting from Tremblay and he was blessed with some amazing lines. His grasp of reverse psychology had us all laughing. There's also a scene in the military facility where the Predator wakes up and I actually believed the way everyone reacted. So often it's a mass of crazed running in all directions or everyone is running for one door, but this one felt like a perfectly choreographed event. We see incredible friendships and camaraderie that really comes to the forefront in the conclusion of the film.
It seems a bit redundant to be saying this because you'd think people would know... but they don't seem to... Military weapon designers: tactical weapons that are made for covert ops and have LED lights on them are in fact not very tactical. Predators: If you just stopped playing with your prey you could have conquered the Earth years ago.
*exhales slowly* So this 3D thing... I really and truly hate space shots in 3D, especially the ones that are basically just black space and stars. Really difficult to look at. Thankfully that didn't last for too long and was replaced what was quite good effects of the spaceship jumping to Earth. There were also a few shots from the sniper perspective that worked well. The rest of the film I found that it went quite badly from fuzzy to sharp and I couldn't quite tell what was supposed to be the focus. I'd have said that was the screen's 3D rather than the film itself, but it still struck me as odd that it was going between the two. I will put it down to just a bad screening.
What should you do?
You should see this, probably in 2D rather than 3D. It's funny, full of action and just the right amount of nostalgia.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Part of me wants the translation device. Part of me wants the invisibility ball (but not afterwards). Part of me wants that tranq gun. The opinion will change depending on how my day goes.
There's just something about "seeing" The Predator when he's invisible that really hits the spot. It gets you on the edge of the seat and fills you with just the right sort of anxiety. Had someone tapped me on the shoulder during the first time that happened in the film I probably would have swung for them while wailing like a banshee.
Lots of actors that you'd recognise from other things and everyone has their own little quirk that works well together in the scenes. It didn't feel like any of the talent was underused, which can be an issue with people in bit parts.
Who knew that Predators had a sense of humour too?! I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a severed limb in such an ingenious way before.
One bit that I really enjoyed reminded me of Futurama. You win bonus nerdy points if you spot it too. It had me tittering away.
There are excellent characters. Genuinely can't think of any that I didn't like in some way. Rory is brilliant in this, great acting from Tremblay and he was blessed with some amazing lines. His grasp of reverse psychology had us all laughing. There's also a scene in the military facility where the Predator wakes up and I actually believed the way everyone reacted. So often it's a mass of crazed running in all directions or everyone is running for one door, but this one felt like a perfectly choreographed event. We see incredible friendships and camaraderie that really comes to the forefront in the conclusion of the film.
It seems a bit redundant to be saying this because you'd think people would know... but they don't seem to... Military weapon designers: tactical weapons that are made for covert ops and have LED lights on them are in fact not very tactical. Predators: If you just stopped playing with your prey you could have conquered the Earth years ago.
*exhales slowly* So this 3D thing... I really and truly hate space shots in 3D, especially the ones that are basically just black space and stars. Really difficult to look at. Thankfully that didn't last for too long and was replaced what was quite good effects of the spaceship jumping to Earth. There were also a few shots from the sniper perspective that worked well. The rest of the film I found that it went quite badly from fuzzy to sharp and I couldn't quite tell what was supposed to be the focus. I'd have said that was the screen's 3D rather than the film itself, but it still struck me as odd that it was going between the two. I will put it down to just a bad screening.
What should you do?
You should see this, probably in 2D rather than 3D. It's funny, full of action and just the right amount of nostalgia.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Part of me wants the translation device. Part of me wants the invisibility ball (but not afterwards). Part of me wants that tranq gun. The opinion will change depending on how my day goes.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Radio y Podcast iVoox
News and Music
3.0
Rate It
App
With iVoox you can listen, share and download podcasts, radio shows and much more for free, whenever...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I'm not the biggest fan of Seth Rogen, his type of humour doesn't always gel with mine, but I saw a trailer that looked amusing so I figured it was something a little different to try.
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
France Inter - radio, podcasts
News and Entertainment
App
La nouvelle application officielle France Inter vous permet d’écouter la radio, de réagir en...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated David Brent: Life on the Road (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A squirm-athon from beginning to end.
“Life on the Road” is a mockumentary sequel to the classic British version of the TV comedy “The Office” (obviously later remade for the US market and featuring Steve Carell). Ricky Gervais played the ego-centric David Brent, a monster of a character who exercised what little control he had in his managerial role at a Slough paper company.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated Life, Death and Biscuits in Books
Apr 4, 2022
This book was an interesting look at the life of a critical care nurse during the Covid-19 pandemic. It was both heartbreaking and heartwarming in places and it was interesting to learn what exactly a critical care nurse is tasked with daily.
However, this has not been my favourite medical memoir, having read Adam Kay’s This Is Going To Hurt just before starting this book. While I liked that the emails that Anthea originally sent out were included, they became very repetitive and I started to become a little bit bored of reading about the same things. I understood that when they were sent out, they were a week or so apart from each other so it may have been necessary for the repetition, but I just don’t think that it worked well within a book.
I also started to get annoyed at the way that Anthea referred to young doctors and belittled them (they were so young they still had acne or a doctor fainted within 2 hours of starting work on the Covid ICU) and how she repeatedly told the reader that the nurses that were sent to help weren’t trained enough and weren’t giving the best care to their patients. It was like she forgot that these nurses had been pulled out of their specialties and thrown into a place where they had to learn new skills, I would bet that Anthea couldn’t work in the areas that these nurses came from to the same standard as them either.
I also got frustrated and felt that she was trying to make us feel sorry for the nurses who were fed three times a day during the start of the pandemic and were forever being gifted snacks, gift bags and hampers and how later on during the second wave she said that they did their job without the discounts, without the free coffee and without a pay rise. While these nurses really did go through hell and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody, the hospital nurses received a lot more than other nurses (especially community nurses), support workers and care home staff who worked tirelessly through the pandemic caring for those who weren’t in the hospitals. The only difference being that they didn’t have the luxury that Anthea and her team had of the food and endless “PPE hugs” whilst still working in the strangest times. Another sentence that stuck out to me was “only nurses talk of food while the aroma of faeces fills the air”, which is not true at all. Anyone who works within the health and social care sector and deals with the personal care of people have the same sense of humour and the same outlooks as many nurses but often get forgotten about.
While this book was interesting to begin, I found from about 40% through I was starting to get very annoyed by the repetition and the self-congratulatory writing that I wasn’t sure if I could finish the book. I think the book could have been much shorter than it was, but I also think that anyone who worked from home or was furloughed during the pandemic should read this to understand how hard it was to work on the front lines while most were enjoying the glorious weather and all of the lockdown activities that went on.
However, this has not been my favourite medical memoir, having read Adam Kay’s This Is Going To Hurt just before starting this book. While I liked that the emails that Anthea originally sent out were included, they became very repetitive and I started to become a little bit bored of reading about the same things. I understood that when they were sent out, they were a week or so apart from each other so it may have been necessary for the repetition, but I just don’t think that it worked well within a book.
I also started to get annoyed at the way that Anthea referred to young doctors and belittled them (they were so young they still had acne or a doctor fainted within 2 hours of starting work on the Covid ICU) and how she repeatedly told the reader that the nurses that were sent to help weren’t trained enough and weren’t giving the best care to their patients. It was like she forgot that these nurses had been pulled out of their specialties and thrown into a place where they had to learn new skills, I would bet that Anthea couldn’t work in the areas that these nurses came from to the same standard as them either.
I also got frustrated and felt that she was trying to make us feel sorry for the nurses who were fed three times a day during the start of the pandemic and were forever being gifted snacks, gift bags and hampers and how later on during the second wave she said that they did their job without the discounts, without the free coffee and without a pay rise. While these nurses really did go through hell and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody, the hospital nurses received a lot more than other nurses (especially community nurses), support workers and care home staff who worked tirelessly through the pandemic caring for those who weren’t in the hospitals. The only difference being that they didn’t have the luxury that Anthea and her team had of the food and endless “PPE hugs” whilst still working in the strangest times. Another sentence that stuck out to me was “only nurses talk of food while the aroma of faeces fills the air”, which is not true at all. Anyone who works within the health and social care sector and deals with the personal care of people have the same sense of humour and the same outlooks as many nurses but often get forgotten about.
While this book was interesting to begin, I found from about 40% through I was starting to get very annoyed by the repetition and the self-congratulatory writing that I wasn’t sure if I could finish the book. I think the book could have been much shorter than it was, but I also think that anyone who worked from home or was furloughed during the pandemic should read this to understand how hard it was to work on the front lines while most were enjoying the glorious weather and all of the lockdown activities that went on.
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated Inside the Mind of Jeffrey Dahmer: The Cannibal Killer in Books
Mar 12, 2022
Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the serial killers that I didn’t know too much about and this book was definitely a revelation. It takes you through from Dahmer being born right up to his death and a lot of the in between.
I’ve never read this author before but am aware of some of his other books and I think that this book was a good one to start with. I liked that we delved into Dahmer’s childhood and found some possible triggers from there but also that the author reinforced that not every child that suffers a specific trauma in their childhood becomes a serial killer, as I think it is important that the reader is reminded of this each time.
I also liked how there was a chapter for each of the victims and also in the appendix there were the charges in more detail for each victim too. Far too often when reading or watching documentaries about serial killers their victims are glossed over and forgotten while their killer’s name is remembered.
There were a few things that I disliked about this book, the main one being the whole chapter that seemed to be dedicated to slagging off psychiatrists and psychologists. While psychology is not an exact science and different people in the profession can come to different conclusions, I feel that the author spent too many pages trying to prove his point. I also felt that a lot of contempt for the profession was coming through in the writing, which, as somebody who wants to become a psychologist, is not something that I appreciated. I understand that everyone has their opinion on it, but I felt that far too much time was spent trying to get his point across.
There were also a few mistakes that made it hard to make sense of a few things, I understand that it has only just been published and there will be a few mistakes (there was a repeated word in a sentence that wasn’t needed) but when it is an obvious mistake with a date (in the Anthony Hughes chapter it says that he was last seen on 24th September 1991 and then 2 chapters below it says that his family were notified of his death on 5th July 1991) it makes for very confusing reading.
I also found that a lot of the time Christopher Berry-Dee referred to the book written by Brian Masters, I’m unsure if this was only because he hasn’t spoken to Dahmer in person while Masters did but at times I felt like I should have just picked up his book instead. I also found that sometimes the author seemed to boast about which serial killers he had met in real life when he didn’t need to.
Overall, I liked the humour in the book and found the writing style easy to get on with. It wasn’t a pleasant book (what book about a serial killer is?) but it was well written. I would pick up other books by this author in the future. Thank you to The Motherload book club on Facebook for the opportunity to win this book in a giveaway and the publisher Ad Lib for my copy!
I’ve never read this author before but am aware of some of his other books and I think that this book was a good one to start with. I liked that we delved into Dahmer’s childhood and found some possible triggers from there but also that the author reinforced that not every child that suffers a specific trauma in their childhood becomes a serial killer, as I think it is important that the reader is reminded of this each time.
I also liked how there was a chapter for each of the victims and also in the appendix there were the charges in more detail for each victim too. Far too often when reading or watching documentaries about serial killers their victims are glossed over and forgotten while their killer’s name is remembered.
There were a few things that I disliked about this book, the main one being the whole chapter that seemed to be dedicated to slagging off psychiatrists and psychologists. While psychology is not an exact science and different people in the profession can come to different conclusions, I feel that the author spent too many pages trying to prove his point. I also felt that a lot of contempt for the profession was coming through in the writing, which, as somebody who wants to become a psychologist, is not something that I appreciated. I understand that everyone has their opinion on it, but I felt that far too much time was spent trying to get his point across.
There were also a few mistakes that made it hard to make sense of a few things, I understand that it has only just been published and there will be a few mistakes (there was a repeated word in a sentence that wasn’t needed) but when it is an obvious mistake with a date (in the Anthony Hughes chapter it says that he was last seen on 24th September 1991 and then 2 chapters below it says that his family were notified of his death on 5th July 1991) it makes for very confusing reading.
I also found that a lot of the time Christopher Berry-Dee referred to the book written by Brian Masters, I’m unsure if this was only because he hasn’t spoken to Dahmer in person while Masters did but at times I felt like I should have just picked up his book instead. I also found that sometimes the author seemed to boast about which serial killers he had met in real life when he didn’t need to.
Overall, I liked the humour in the book and found the writing style easy to get on with. It wasn’t a pleasant book (what book about a serial killer is?) but it was well written. I would pick up other books by this author in the future. Thank you to The Motherload book club on Facebook for the opportunity to win this book in a giveaway and the publisher Ad Lib for my copy!