Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The answer to the above is "yes" by the way... it's always yes.
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Cruise the Storm (John McBride #2) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
A group of terrorist hijackers on board a cruise ship. An ex SAS soldier on board teaching watercolour painting. A huge storm bearing down on the ship.
This might sound like the plot of some Hollywood blockbuster full of explosions and witty one liners from the hero but Chilcott delivers something a lot more cerebral than that. The story and characters have a sense of reality and this is more like a game of chess between the chief hijacker and the crew, a game where the ship is the board and the pawns the passengers which the terrorists are only too willing to dispose of to meet their aims.
Keith Bourne is the founder and leader of the White Christian League, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation who specialise in violent demonstration and the odd mosque burning. Bourne wants cash to further his rather nasty aims and decides that hijacking a cruise liner will fit the bill nicely. MI5 have been watching him and manage to get one of their agents onto the boat in an attempt to thwart Bourne and his cronies.
John McBride is a watercolour artist of some renown who is drafted onto the cruise to teach any interested passengers how to paint in watercolours, the scenes in the various Mediterranean ports they will be visitng being ideal subjects. McBride also happens to be a former member of the elite SAS and when he is made aware of the plot to hijack the ship is able to advise the captain and MI5.
The tension cranks up nicely through the first half of the book, seen mostly from the point of view of Bourne and McBride as each becomes aware of each other and both their plans have to be changed by circumstance. Everything comes to a head on the night the storm hits the ship.
At this point, with everything poised on a knife edge of success or failure for both sides, Chilcott pulls a deft narrative twist and goes back and tells the story again from the point of view of the chairman of the cruise line and one of the passengers, once again building up to the crisis point. This has the nice effect of filling in details that were previously only mentioned but also did lose the momentum which took a while to get going again. It may have been better to tell the story purely sequentially but seeing events from different perspectives again was interesting.
The characters and situations are written with a real authenticity. There are no miraculous escapes, no amazing feats of marksmanship and this is a very real strength of Chilcott's writing. Everthing happens in a way that seems very authentic - and in the case of the actions of the hijackers, worryingly so. Every action and reaction of the characters is plausible and there are frequent points where the story could go one way or another just on a chance encounter or random event.
This realism also felt a little like a weakness to me. Some things happen which provide some dramatic tension at the time but ultimately don't really have a bearing on the eventual outcome. Although this is very much like real life, perhaps it is not what is expected in a thriller of this type. In particlar (and these aren't really spoilers) the ship is damaged in the storm but this doesn't really affect anything, and also what happens when events are told from the point of view of one of the passengers looks to be building to something interesting but ultimately fizzles away. I would have liked to see more of these sub plots carried forward to the end of the story.
Despite this, the book was a good and interesting read and I am looking forward to reading more of Chilcott's McBride novels. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes their thrillers character driven and cerebral rather than all action. Plus you will pick up some excellent tips on painting in watercolours as a bonus.
Rated: Some violence, language and sexual references
This might sound like the plot of some Hollywood blockbuster full of explosions and witty one liners from the hero but Chilcott delivers something a lot more cerebral than that. The story and characters have a sense of reality and this is more like a game of chess between the chief hijacker and the crew, a game where the ship is the board and the pawns the passengers which the terrorists are only too willing to dispose of to meet their aims.
Keith Bourne is the founder and leader of the White Christian League, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation who specialise in violent demonstration and the odd mosque burning. Bourne wants cash to further his rather nasty aims and decides that hijacking a cruise liner will fit the bill nicely. MI5 have been watching him and manage to get one of their agents onto the boat in an attempt to thwart Bourne and his cronies.
John McBride is a watercolour artist of some renown who is drafted onto the cruise to teach any interested passengers how to paint in watercolours, the scenes in the various Mediterranean ports they will be visitng being ideal subjects. McBride also happens to be a former member of the elite SAS and when he is made aware of the plot to hijack the ship is able to advise the captain and MI5.
The tension cranks up nicely through the first half of the book, seen mostly from the point of view of Bourne and McBride as each becomes aware of each other and both their plans have to be changed by circumstance. Everything comes to a head on the night the storm hits the ship.
At this point, with everything poised on a knife edge of success or failure for both sides, Chilcott pulls a deft narrative twist and goes back and tells the story again from the point of view of the chairman of the cruise line and one of the passengers, once again building up to the crisis point. This has the nice effect of filling in details that were previously only mentioned but also did lose the momentum which took a while to get going again. It may have been better to tell the story purely sequentially but seeing events from different perspectives again was interesting.
The characters and situations are written with a real authenticity. There are no miraculous escapes, no amazing feats of marksmanship and this is a very real strength of Chilcott's writing. Everthing happens in a way that seems very authentic - and in the case of the actions of the hijackers, worryingly so. Every action and reaction of the characters is plausible and there are frequent points where the story could go one way or another just on a chance encounter or random event.
This realism also felt a little like a weakness to me. Some things happen which provide some dramatic tension at the time but ultimately don't really have a bearing on the eventual outcome. Although this is very much like real life, perhaps it is not what is expected in a thriller of this type. In particlar (and these aren't really spoilers) the ship is damaged in the storm but this doesn't really affect anything, and also what happens when events are told from the point of view of one of the passengers looks to be building to something interesting but ultimately fizzles away. I would have liked to see more of these sub plots carried forward to the end of the story.
Despite this, the book was a good and interesting read and I am looking forward to reading more of Chilcott's McBride novels. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes their thrillers character driven and cerebral rather than all action. Plus you will pick up some excellent tips on painting in watercolours as a bonus.
Rated: Some violence, language and sexual references
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Poor Dani!
Coming off the critical and box office success of Hereditary, would writer/director Ari Aster avoid the sophomore slump with his 2nd major feature, Midsommar, I would say that is a resounding YES!
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Chandrea: The Return of the Avatar Queen (Averill, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I was overly excited to review Marlene Wynn's The Return of the Avatar Queen when I heard what genre it fell in the New Adult world: fantasy. NOT Contemporary or Romance (or both!) like most seem to be these days. Really, the only New Adult book I've come across that's something other than Contemporary is the Everlast Trilogy by Juliana Haygert (among a few others).
The first in the Averill series is just another step towards some more diversity in the ever growing pool of New Adult books. But here are a few reasons why you should take a moment and read Marlene Wynn's debut novel:
Character Development and World Building Here's what is probably one of the most difficult things in fantasy and paranormal novels: developing the world the entire world, because in a fantasy book, most worlds are fictional and completely made up! Wynn has it patted down nicely enough within the book that it's not necessary to have a separate dictionary. I definitely feel as though I know enough about the world of Itova as Chandrea does, and the characters don't feel as though they're miles away from me.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NQ6pA2Tm_Sk/VIi50dboa_I/AAAAAAAAEEg/IQqffnS_y1w/s1600/awesome.gif"; height="180" width="320">
It's Funny I had the highlight of my book week while reading Wynn's novel, but whenever there are flying raccoons, I can't really help but find it hilarious. It definitely helps when Shawn becomes a major character and lightens things up. He's just a fantastic edition to the book and he seems to make the lighter side of Chandrea come out as well I certainly hope the author won't kill him off anytime soon. Not that I actually have a say, of course.
<blockquote>If you dont, I wont bathe, and Ill sleep curled up right next to you, in all my stinky glory.</blockquote>
Of course, it's definitely not as hilarious as something I saw in a NCRA magazine about a month ago, or finding out what "bae" really means in another language.
No Surprises This is more of something I really disliked about The Return of the Avatar Queen rather than something I liked. As much as I love knowing all the side characters' history, I really think I would have enjoyed my reading experience more if there were less views. With the amount of views (which, by the way, is quite a lot), I feel as though I'm one step ahead and the author loses the element of surprise. Whatever seems likely to happen in the future to a character or two is already expected by the reader.
Last time I checked, not being surprised does not dwell well. But credit to Wynn for not making me feel like Hansel and Gretel with bread baked by Peeta, to which I turn into crumbs (the bread, not Peeta). Two facts: 1) I like surprises in books. 2) I don't necessarily like surprises in real life.
Here's a little elaboration on #2: A good friend of mine I call him Mr. Pokey and yes, he's probably related to Lupe. AKA Miss. Pokey. volunteered to take me to chess tournaments. A few days later, his mom said she could take both of us, but said friend told our coach that I could go without telling me about it first. As a result, I'm have been plotting his demise. Would I really do it? No, but sometimes I want to throw something at his infuriatingly overconfident face.
So here's a word of advice: Don't try to make decisions for others without telling them about it first. At least, don't make decisions for me unless you're my mom. You could regret it dearly.
Basically, you won't really regret reading The Return of the Avatar Queen. Marlene Wynn's debut novel shows a lot of promise in the future and I'm curious as to where the storyline goes from here on out.
-------------------
Review copy provided by the author for the blog tour
Original Rating: 3.5
Original review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/blog-tour-chandrea-the-return-of-the-avatar-queen-by-marlene-wynn-review-and-giveaway.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
The first in the Averill series is just another step towards some more diversity in the ever growing pool of New Adult books. But here are a few reasons why you should take a moment and read Marlene Wynn's debut novel:
Character Development and World Building Here's what is probably one of the most difficult things in fantasy and paranormal novels: developing the world the entire world, because in a fantasy book, most worlds are fictional and completely made up! Wynn has it patted down nicely enough within the book that it's not necessary to have a separate dictionary. I definitely feel as though I know enough about the world of Itova as Chandrea does, and the characters don't feel as though they're miles away from me.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NQ6pA2Tm_Sk/VIi50dboa_I/AAAAAAAAEEg/IQqffnS_y1w/s1600/awesome.gif"; height="180" width="320">
It's Funny I had the highlight of my book week while reading Wynn's novel, but whenever there are flying raccoons, I can't really help but find it hilarious. It definitely helps when Shawn becomes a major character and lightens things up. He's just a fantastic edition to the book and he seems to make the lighter side of Chandrea come out as well I certainly hope the author won't kill him off anytime soon. Not that I actually have a say, of course.
<blockquote>If you dont, I wont bathe, and Ill sleep curled up right next to you, in all my stinky glory.</blockquote>
Of course, it's definitely not as hilarious as something I saw in a NCRA magazine about a month ago, or finding out what "bae" really means in another language.
No Surprises This is more of something I really disliked about The Return of the Avatar Queen rather than something I liked. As much as I love knowing all the side characters' history, I really think I would have enjoyed my reading experience more if there were less views. With the amount of views (which, by the way, is quite a lot), I feel as though I'm one step ahead and the author loses the element of surprise. Whatever seems likely to happen in the future to a character or two is already expected by the reader.
Last time I checked, not being surprised does not dwell well. But credit to Wynn for not making me feel like Hansel and Gretel with bread baked by Peeta, to which I turn into crumbs (the bread, not Peeta). Two facts: 1) I like surprises in books. 2) I don't necessarily like surprises in real life.
Here's a little elaboration on #2: A good friend of mine I call him Mr. Pokey and yes, he's probably related to Lupe. AKA Miss. Pokey. volunteered to take me to chess tournaments. A few days later, his mom said she could take both of us, but said friend told our coach that I could go without telling me about it first. As a result, I'm have been plotting his demise. Would I really do it? No, but sometimes I want to throw something at his infuriatingly overconfident face.
So here's a word of advice: Don't try to make decisions for others without telling them about it first. At least, don't make decisions for me unless you're my mom. You could regret it dearly.
Basically, you won't really regret reading The Return of the Avatar Queen. Marlene Wynn's debut novel shows a lot of promise in the future and I'm curious as to where the storyline goes from here on out.
-------------------
Review copy provided by the author for the blog tour
Original Rating: 3.5
Original review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/blog-tour-chandrea-the-return-of-the-avatar-queen-by-marlene-wynn-review-and-giveaway.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Yeah, but I Didn't in Books
Feb 15, 2020
I love books that deal with some sort of downward spiral. I don't mean that in a morbid sense. I just mean that I usually find them interesting. When I was presented with the opportunity of reading Yeah, but I Didn't by Ann Swann, I jumped at the chance.
Benji Stevens is a bright 14 year old high school girl. In fact, she's so smart, she's even skipped a grade in school. When something horrible happens to her one day at her house, her life begins to spiral out of control. With bad things happening right after one another, will Benji find the light at the end of the tunnel or will it be too late?
The premise for Yeah, but I Didn't is really interesting. There were some great aspects of this book. In fact, after reading this book, my new life motto is now, "You can’t control how other people treat you. But you CAN control how you react. And that’s how you take back your power." I love that quote, and it's said a few times throughout Yeah, but I Didn't. I liked the theme of hope and forgiveness towards the end of the book as well. Ann Swann did a fantastic job with her descriptive language at making it easy to picture each scene in the book. I found myself being transported to the setting of Yeah, But I Didn't whenever I started reading.
The characters in Yeah, but I Didn't felt fairly realistic throughout the novel, though Benji's character seemed more like she was 12 with how she would speak and act sometimes. I liked Benji though, and I admired her determination to get through this horrible part of her life. I enjoyed reading about Benji's mom and how (in the last quarter of the book) she turns to God to help her with everything. (Though this was a sudden shift and was a little jarring. The story went from no real mention of God to suddenly focusing on how God can help you.) Janie was a well-written character, but I just wanted to shake that girl sometimes for being so spiteful and horrible to her mom and Benji especially! My favorite characters were Uncle Aidan and Dr Blue. They always came across as being optimistic and wanting to help Benji be the best version of herself. I will also say that each character is described very well, so it's easy to picture each one as a real life person instead of just some character in a book.
As much as I enjoyed the book, there were things that didn't work for me. I found the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking, and I felt like there was too much narrative description through much of the book; I didn't need to know exact details of every little thing. I could have done without the mention of politics in this book; it didn't seem necessary. And a pet peeve: it's mentioned that Benji and her uncle they order chicken nuggets from Sonic. Sonic does not do chicken nuggets; they do chicken strips, popcorn chicken, and boneless wings -- but never chicken nuggets!
I also felt like, although this book is considered a young adult book and deals with some heavy subject matters, it felt like it was written for a middle grade audience.
Trigger warnings for Yeah, but I Didn't include alcoholism, suicide, attempted suicide, teenage pregnancy, some violence, and attempted rape.
While I found Yeah, but I Didn't to be a bit of a slow read mostly, I do think younger teens that who are going through a dark patch in their life would enjoy this. I would recommend Yeah, but I Didn't by Ann Swann to those 14+ who need a bit of hope in their life.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with an eBook of Yeah, but I Didn't by Ann Swann in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Benji Stevens is a bright 14 year old high school girl. In fact, she's so smart, she's even skipped a grade in school. When something horrible happens to her one day at her house, her life begins to spiral out of control. With bad things happening right after one another, will Benji find the light at the end of the tunnel or will it be too late?
The premise for Yeah, but I Didn't is really interesting. There were some great aspects of this book. In fact, after reading this book, my new life motto is now, "You can’t control how other people treat you. But you CAN control how you react. And that’s how you take back your power." I love that quote, and it's said a few times throughout Yeah, but I Didn't. I liked the theme of hope and forgiveness towards the end of the book as well. Ann Swann did a fantastic job with her descriptive language at making it easy to picture each scene in the book. I found myself being transported to the setting of Yeah, But I Didn't whenever I started reading.
The characters in Yeah, but I Didn't felt fairly realistic throughout the novel, though Benji's character seemed more like she was 12 with how she would speak and act sometimes. I liked Benji though, and I admired her determination to get through this horrible part of her life. I enjoyed reading about Benji's mom and how (in the last quarter of the book) she turns to God to help her with everything. (Though this was a sudden shift and was a little jarring. The story went from no real mention of God to suddenly focusing on how God can help you.) Janie was a well-written character, but I just wanted to shake that girl sometimes for being so spiteful and horrible to her mom and Benji especially! My favorite characters were Uncle Aidan and Dr Blue. They always came across as being optimistic and wanting to help Benji be the best version of herself. I will also say that each character is described very well, so it's easy to picture each one as a real life person instead of just some character in a book.
As much as I enjoyed the book, there were things that didn't work for me. I found the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking, and I felt like there was too much narrative description through much of the book; I didn't need to know exact details of every little thing. I could have done without the mention of politics in this book; it didn't seem necessary. And a pet peeve: it's mentioned that Benji and her uncle they order chicken nuggets from Sonic. Sonic does not do chicken nuggets; they do chicken strips, popcorn chicken, and boneless wings -- but never chicken nuggets!
I also felt like, although this book is considered a young adult book and deals with some heavy subject matters, it felt like it was written for a middle grade audience.
Trigger warnings for Yeah, but I Didn't include alcoholism, suicide, attempted suicide, teenage pregnancy, some violence, and attempted rape.
While I found Yeah, but I Didn't to be a bit of a slow read mostly, I do think younger teens that who are going through a dark patch in their life would enjoy this. I would recommend Yeah, but I Didn't by Ann Swann to those 14+ who need a bit of hope in their life.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with an eBook of Yeah, but I Didn't by Ann Swann in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Is the third time a charm for Mr. Butler's action thriller series?
Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service agent Mike Banning in the third entry of the "Fallen" series, picking up where London Has Fallen left off.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.