Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
Okja (pronounced ok-cha, as far as I can discern from hearing it said) was a film I had on my radar from its release, but it took the impetus of Parasite and director Bong Joon Ho winning the Oscar to kick me into settling down to watch it. It is the kind of film I would have seen as a matter of course when I worked at the beloved Cameo Cinema, Edinburgh, back in the day… but the kind of film it takes me a while to get around to these days.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Twisted Game of War in Tabletop Games
Jun 4, 2021
War. The card game nearly everyone knows how to play. You know, throw a card and your opponent throws a card and the highest number wins the played cards. First one to get all the cards wins. Yeah, there’s another rule, but that’s the gist. Well what if War got a small makeover? Would you be interested in checking it out? Let’s find out together!
In Twisted Game of War players take hold of their army and attempt to defeat their opponents by capturing and converting their entire army. The winner is the player who manages to collect all of the cards in the deck and hold every soldier.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup give each player a reference card, shuffle the deck of remaining cards, and give each player an equal number of cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn each player will simultaneously blindly draw and play one card from the top of their deck to the table. The cards are compared and the winner of the hand is the card with the higher number value. In Twisted Game of War, however, in addition to gaining the played cards the winner will also consult the chart on the reverse of the reference card. This chart shows additional results based on which suit of card bested the other suit. Possible effects include: a random card from the loser’s deck, a bottom card, the top two cards, or even each card returning to its original owner’s deck. As the game progresses, one player will eventually out-duel their opponent to win the game!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are normal quality and feature a brown back and numbers with different suit on the fronts. Quality-wise everything is fine. Where I have issues is the artistic design choices made for the game. The suits all suggest medieval-esque weapons and armor, and all utilizing metal as primary materials (save for the bow). However, the card backs and logo for the game seem to feature stitching, as you might find in cloth materials. This mismatch does not affect gameplay at all, but made me do the doggy head-cock motion when I noticed it. Similarly, the cards are all, well, boring to look at. Yes, they give the proper elements that are needed: suit and number. And I suppose players aren’t really looking at them too much anyway, as it’s a slightly fancied-up War and cards are played and discarded almost immediately. In any case, I feel an area of opportunity lies with the aesthetic of the game cards.
All in all this is a decent idea pasted onto a “game” that really is not much fun to play anyway. War takes zero skill and has zero choices. Twisted Game of War plays the exact same way, but has the added bonus of at least DOING something on many hands. So I suppose there is merit to be found.
When all is said and done, I still cannot see this as a “game,” as I happen to define the term personally, but I can see value when playing with children. If used with children, the game introduces the “less than” and “greater than” concepts, and children do not need to be able to read in order to play with the suit effect chart, so long as an adult or older child is able to read the results.
When I am hankering for a good card game, I simply cannot suggest Twisted Game of War with typical adult gamers. However, if I need something that my kids can get into, I may be able to pull this out and help teach them simple math and chaos concepts. I like the idea of trying to improve overly-simple games, but I think a bit more care could have gone into production here and it would have elevated this game for me. If you are searching for such a game as this, please hop over to the publisher’s website at: Mental Eclipse Games and tell them Travis sent ya.
In Twisted Game of War players take hold of their army and attempt to defeat their opponents by capturing and converting their entire army. The winner is the player who manages to collect all of the cards in the deck and hold every soldier.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup give each player a reference card, shuffle the deck of remaining cards, and give each player an equal number of cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn each player will simultaneously blindly draw and play one card from the top of their deck to the table. The cards are compared and the winner of the hand is the card with the higher number value. In Twisted Game of War, however, in addition to gaining the played cards the winner will also consult the chart on the reverse of the reference card. This chart shows additional results based on which suit of card bested the other suit. Possible effects include: a random card from the loser’s deck, a bottom card, the top two cards, or even each card returning to its original owner’s deck. As the game progresses, one player will eventually out-duel their opponent to win the game!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are normal quality and feature a brown back and numbers with different suit on the fronts. Quality-wise everything is fine. Where I have issues is the artistic design choices made for the game. The suits all suggest medieval-esque weapons and armor, and all utilizing metal as primary materials (save for the bow). However, the card backs and logo for the game seem to feature stitching, as you might find in cloth materials. This mismatch does not affect gameplay at all, but made me do the doggy head-cock motion when I noticed it. Similarly, the cards are all, well, boring to look at. Yes, they give the proper elements that are needed: suit and number. And I suppose players aren’t really looking at them too much anyway, as it’s a slightly fancied-up War and cards are played and discarded almost immediately. In any case, I feel an area of opportunity lies with the aesthetic of the game cards.
All in all this is a decent idea pasted onto a “game” that really is not much fun to play anyway. War takes zero skill and has zero choices. Twisted Game of War plays the exact same way, but has the added bonus of at least DOING something on many hands. So I suppose there is merit to be found.
When all is said and done, I still cannot see this as a “game,” as I happen to define the term personally, but I can see value when playing with children. If used with children, the game introduces the “less than” and “greater than” concepts, and children do not need to be able to read in order to play with the suit effect chart, so long as an adult or older child is able to read the results.
When I am hankering for a good card game, I simply cannot suggest Twisted Game of War with typical adult gamers. However, if I need something that my kids can get into, I may be able to pull this out and help teach them simple math and chaos concepts. I like the idea of trying to improve overly-simple games, but I think a bit more care could have gone into production here and it would have elevated this game for me. If you are searching for such a game as this, please hop over to the publisher’s website at: Mental Eclipse Games and tell them Travis sent ya.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On the Rocks (2020) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
Bill Murray being Bill Murray, but in sparkling form
Bill Murray is astonishing. Not just in "On the Rocks", but generally in life. Some actors - Johnny Depp, Mark Rylance, Gary Oldman, for instance - disappear completely into their characters so it takes a while to "see" who they are. Whereas with others - Bill Nighy, Tom Cruise, John Wayne, for instance - it's "Oh, there's the famous actor xxxx in a new movie". If we were grading on a scale, Bill Murray would be at the far right of the latter category. In every movie, he IS Bill Murray! In "Ghostbusters" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking ghost hunter. In "Groundhog Day" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking weatherman. In "The Monuments Men" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking art historian. (In the "Zombieland" movies, he excelled himself by playing the dry, laconic, wisecracking Bill Murray!)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50’s and older as they don’t seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Over the Holidays in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Summary: Vanessa is experiencing craziness from the holidays like she never has before: her husband’s relatives (who are extremely annoying) are visiting and taking over her holiday while he is out of town until Christmas eve, which means she has to entertain them, her sister is acting like she’s unrelated because she’s so wrapped up in her art (which she’s struggling with) and she’s trying desperately not to have an affair with the hansom playwright she’s working with…
My thoughts: It was really hard for me to see what the point of this book was, but i think it centered around holiday traditions, gifts, really weird relatives, and baking your pies instead of buying them from a store. there was no focus on the meaning of Christmas (Christ. hence, Christmas.) and i felt like the character’s decisions were not made based on what was right and the reason behind why it was right, but only to keep their dignity. the book seemed shallow in that sense. I really have a hard time understanding what these people were celebrating during Christmas—if you’re not celebrating the baby Jesus, what are you eating turkey for anyway?
The Plot: this book was a path through Christmas and New Year celebrations, so it took the four most important characters (Vanessa, her sister Thea, mother in-law Patience, and Patience’s daughter Libby) and told their Christmas stories from each of their perspectives. there were parts of the story that were really surprising—for instance, i didn’t expect what happened with Neil or Cal, and was very anxious to find out what happened.
The Characters: there were so many new characters all thrown at you at once in the beginning of the book, it’s a little tough to keep up with. Vanessa seemed to have her head on reasonably straight, which i liked. Thea though, out of all the characters, was the one who had the best grip on reality (maybe that’s just because she and I are both crazy temperamental artists, though). Patience (who was not patient) seemed trivial and silly and a little ditzy, which was perfect for her. I don’t think i was supposed to particularly like her. at least, i hope that’s the case. (because i didn’t.) Libby seemed melodramatic and had an overrated view of sex. but her love for her cousins made her endearing.
The Writing: there was a lot of swearing in this book. a lot. which really doesn’t bother me that much, because when i’m reading i skip over it and don’t really register it, but it might bother other people. the writing style in general seemed very casual, and some things were over described—i really don’t care if the toilet that she peed into was stainless steel or porcelain, and i don’t really want to know every detail of a woman’s Christmas shopping.
Recommendation and rating: I gave this book a 2 out of five, if you look on my side bar you see that I wrote “you might enjoy it, but you're really not missing anything if you skip it.” I rated it that way because I personally didn’t connect with this book (probably because of my view of Christmas being centered around Christ, not pie.) and would have lived to see tomorrow if I hadn’t read it. however, if you look below, there is a list of other blogs on this tour, and other people may tell you that it was fantastic. I guess this one just wasn’t for me. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a light quick fun read, ages 16+
check out the rest of the blog tour:
*Rundpinne: http://www.rundpinne.blogspot.com
*Frugal Plus: http://frugalplus.com/
*The Life (And Lies) of an Inanimate Flying Object:
http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/
*Drey’s Library: http://dreyslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Wendi’s Book Corner: http://wendisbookcorner.blogspot.com/
*Opinionated? Me? : http://readingwatchingliving.blogspot.com/
*Me, My Book and the Couch:
http://memybookandthecouch.blogspot.com/
*Libby’s Library News: http://www.libslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Bookin’ With Bingo: http://bookinwithbingo.blogspot.com/
*Books, Movies, and Chinese Food:
http://books-movies-chinesefood.blogspot.com/
*Psychotic State: http://www.psychoticstate.blogspot.com/
*Readaholic: http://bridget3420.blogspot.com/
*That’s A Novel Idea: http://thatsanovelidea.blogspot.com
*All About {N}: http://www.bookwormygirl.blogspot.com/
*Starting Fresh: http://startingfresh-gaby317.blogspot.com/
*A Sea of Books: http://aseaofbooks.blogspot.com/
*Just Another New Blog: http://justanothernewblog.blogspot.com/
*Blog Business World: http://www.blogbusinessworld.blogspot.com
*My Friend Amy: http://www.myfriendamysblog.com
*Cheryl’s Book Nook: http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/
*One Person’s Journey Through A World of Books:
http://bookjourney.wordpress.com/
*I Read: http://sumanam.wordpress.com/
*So Many Books, So Little Time:
http://purplg8r-somanybooks.blogspot.com/
*Keep on Booking: http://keeponbooking.blogspot.com
*Reading at the Beach: http://ilratb.blogspot.com/
*Found Not Lost: http://jmomfinds.amoores.com/
*Brizmus Blogs Books: http://brizmusblogsbooks.blogspot.com/
*Book Reviews by Buuklvr81: http://www.buuklvr81.blogspot.com/
Thank you to Sarah Reidy from Pocket Books for providing me with my review copy.
win this copy of my book at haleymathiot.blogspot.com
My thoughts: It was really hard for me to see what the point of this book was, but i think it centered around holiday traditions, gifts, really weird relatives, and baking your pies instead of buying them from a store. there was no focus on the meaning of Christmas (Christ. hence, Christmas.) and i felt like the character’s decisions were not made based on what was right and the reason behind why it was right, but only to keep their dignity. the book seemed shallow in that sense. I really have a hard time understanding what these people were celebrating during Christmas—if you’re not celebrating the baby Jesus, what are you eating turkey for anyway?
The Plot: this book was a path through Christmas and New Year celebrations, so it took the four most important characters (Vanessa, her sister Thea, mother in-law Patience, and Patience’s daughter Libby) and told their Christmas stories from each of their perspectives. there were parts of the story that were really surprising—for instance, i didn’t expect what happened with Neil or Cal, and was very anxious to find out what happened.
The Characters: there were so many new characters all thrown at you at once in the beginning of the book, it’s a little tough to keep up with. Vanessa seemed to have her head on reasonably straight, which i liked. Thea though, out of all the characters, was the one who had the best grip on reality (maybe that’s just because she and I are both crazy temperamental artists, though). Patience (who was not patient) seemed trivial and silly and a little ditzy, which was perfect for her. I don’t think i was supposed to particularly like her. at least, i hope that’s the case. (because i didn’t.) Libby seemed melodramatic and had an overrated view of sex. but her love for her cousins made her endearing.
The Writing: there was a lot of swearing in this book. a lot. which really doesn’t bother me that much, because when i’m reading i skip over it and don’t really register it, but it might bother other people. the writing style in general seemed very casual, and some things were over described—i really don’t care if the toilet that she peed into was stainless steel or porcelain, and i don’t really want to know every detail of a woman’s Christmas shopping.
Recommendation and rating: I gave this book a 2 out of five, if you look on my side bar you see that I wrote “you might enjoy it, but you're really not missing anything if you skip it.” I rated it that way because I personally didn’t connect with this book (probably because of my view of Christmas being centered around Christ, not pie.) and would have lived to see tomorrow if I hadn’t read it. however, if you look below, there is a list of other blogs on this tour, and other people may tell you that it was fantastic. I guess this one just wasn’t for me. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a light quick fun read, ages 16+
check out the rest of the blog tour:
*Rundpinne: http://www.rundpinne.blogspot.com
*Frugal Plus: http://frugalplus.com/
*The Life (And Lies) of an Inanimate Flying Object:
http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/
*Drey’s Library: http://dreyslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Wendi’s Book Corner: http://wendisbookcorner.blogspot.com/
*Opinionated? Me? : http://readingwatchingliving.blogspot.com/
*Me, My Book and the Couch:
http://memybookandthecouch.blogspot.com/
*Libby’s Library News: http://www.libslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Bookin’ With Bingo: http://bookinwithbingo.blogspot.com/
*Books, Movies, and Chinese Food:
http://books-movies-chinesefood.blogspot.com/
*Psychotic State: http://www.psychoticstate.blogspot.com/
*Readaholic: http://bridget3420.blogspot.com/
*That’s A Novel Idea: http://thatsanovelidea.blogspot.com
*All About {N}: http://www.bookwormygirl.blogspot.com/
*Starting Fresh: http://startingfresh-gaby317.blogspot.com/
*A Sea of Books: http://aseaofbooks.blogspot.com/
*Just Another New Blog: http://justanothernewblog.blogspot.com/
*Blog Business World: http://www.blogbusinessworld.blogspot.com
*My Friend Amy: http://www.myfriendamysblog.com
*Cheryl’s Book Nook: http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/
*One Person’s Journey Through A World of Books:
http://bookjourney.wordpress.com/
*I Read: http://sumanam.wordpress.com/
*So Many Books, So Little Time:
http://purplg8r-somanybooks.blogspot.com/
*Keep on Booking: http://keeponbooking.blogspot.com
*Reading at the Beach: http://ilratb.blogspot.com/
*Found Not Lost: http://jmomfinds.amoores.com/
*Brizmus Blogs Books: http://brizmusblogsbooks.blogspot.com/
*Book Reviews by Buuklvr81: http://www.buuklvr81.blogspot.com/
Thank you to Sarah Reidy from Pocket Books for providing me with my review copy.
win this copy of my book at haleymathiot.blogspot.com
Lee (2222 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 8, 2019 (Updated Apr 8, 2019)
Shazam is the latest DC superhero to land himself a standalone movie and continues to highlight the fact that these self contained DC offerings really do seem to be a lot better than their rushed ensemble movie output. It also shows how much better they can be when straying from the traditional dark DC gloom and deciding to inject a bit more humour and fun into it all. Aquaman recently showed just how much of a box office success that formula can be, Wonder Woman before it to a certain extent, and although Shazam does certainly have some dark themes and moments, it’s ultimately a lot more fun than either of those.
Shazam does take it’s time in introducing our superhero though, not to mention our super-villain, and the result is a much more grounded and believable movie. We begin with young boy Thaddeus Sivana, traveling by car with his elder brother and father. It’s the first of a number of dark scenes involving the Sivana family, really helping us to get a better understanding and appreciation of the man he later becomes and the motivation that drives him. We then head to present day Philadelphia, where 15 year old Billy Batson is using whatever means possible, legal or otherwise, to try and locate the birth mother he became separated from as a young boy while at a crowded funfair. Since then, Billy has been in the foster care system, and now finds himself in the care of Victor and Rosa – former foster kids themselves, who now run a home for a small group of foster children. Billy is sharing a room with Freddy, a disabled boy with an interest in superheroes and the proud owner of some pretty cool superhero memorabilia, including a batarang from Batman and a genuine bullet, flattened from having bounced off the man of steel himself! The foster home is a pretty close knit group and Billy initially struggles to fit into this large new ready made family.
And then one day, while on the run after standing up to a couple of older kids who were bullying Freddy, Billy finds himself transported to a dark mysterious cave where he inherits the powers of aged wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsoul). The wizard is the last Shazam, currently protecting the world from an invasion of the Seven Deadly Sins, but now so weak that he must transfer his powers to someone who is true of heart. Absorbing his power, Billy becomes a grown up superhero (Zachari Levy), but by saying the word Shazam he is able to alternate between his teen body and that of the mighty superhero whenever he wants.
Once he manages to convince Freddy that he is in fact Billy and not some crazy guy in a suit, they have a lot of fun trying to work out which powers Shazam actually has and how to best make use of them. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know that this is where a lot of the fun lies within the movie and it’s definitely very entertaining. But Billy eventually begins having a little too much fun for Freddy’s liking, and when all he is doing is skipping school to go shoot off lightning bolts for a gathered crowd, Freddy becomes frustrated that he is wasting his gift. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Meanwhile, young Thaddeus Sivana has now become Dr Sivana (Mark Strong), acquiring some pretty impressive powers of his own and forging his own dark path in a scene which really pushes the 12A age rating for the movie. All his life, Sivana has been seeking the power that Billy has now acquired, so when this larger than life hero shows up, goofing around and not really taking that power seriously, Dr Sivana goes after Shazam to try and take the power for himself.
From there, the rest of the movie is pretty much a cat and mouse chase between Sivana and Shazam across the city, up in the sky and down on the streets as they smash through shopping malls and buildings before culminating in a fairground showdown. It’s actually a lot more fun than it sounds, although the whole movie could probably benefit from having about 10-15 minutes cut from it. Also, the dark threat introduced so shockingly earlier on in the movie, suddenly doesn’t become so shocking or menacing towards the end. It’s indicative of the tone of the movie as a whole really, trying to remain rooted in the traditional DC gloom, but striving for family friendly box office success. These are all very minor negatives for me though – overall Shazam is a lot of fun and very lighthearted, with a lot to say about the importance of family. And the Boardman family had an absolute blast watching it!
Shazam does take it’s time in introducing our superhero though, not to mention our super-villain, and the result is a much more grounded and believable movie. We begin with young boy Thaddeus Sivana, traveling by car with his elder brother and father. It’s the first of a number of dark scenes involving the Sivana family, really helping us to get a better understanding and appreciation of the man he later becomes and the motivation that drives him. We then head to present day Philadelphia, where 15 year old Billy Batson is using whatever means possible, legal or otherwise, to try and locate the birth mother he became separated from as a young boy while at a crowded funfair. Since then, Billy has been in the foster care system, and now finds himself in the care of Victor and Rosa – former foster kids themselves, who now run a home for a small group of foster children. Billy is sharing a room with Freddy, a disabled boy with an interest in superheroes and the proud owner of some pretty cool superhero memorabilia, including a batarang from Batman and a genuine bullet, flattened from having bounced off the man of steel himself! The foster home is a pretty close knit group and Billy initially struggles to fit into this large new ready made family.
And then one day, while on the run after standing up to a couple of older kids who were bullying Freddy, Billy finds himself transported to a dark mysterious cave where he inherits the powers of aged wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsoul). The wizard is the last Shazam, currently protecting the world from an invasion of the Seven Deadly Sins, but now so weak that he must transfer his powers to someone who is true of heart. Absorbing his power, Billy becomes a grown up superhero (Zachari Levy), but by saying the word Shazam he is able to alternate between his teen body and that of the mighty superhero whenever he wants.
Once he manages to convince Freddy that he is in fact Billy and not some crazy guy in a suit, they have a lot of fun trying to work out which powers Shazam actually has and how to best make use of them. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know that this is where a lot of the fun lies within the movie and it’s definitely very entertaining. But Billy eventually begins having a little too much fun for Freddy’s liking, and when all he is doing is skipping school to go shoot off lightning bolts for a gathered crowd, Freddy becomes frustrated that he is wasting his gift. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Meanwhile, young Thaddeus Sivana has now become Dr Sivana (Mark Strong), acquiring some pretty impressive powers of his own and forging his own dark path in a scene which really pushes the 12A age rating for the movie. All his life, Sivana has been seeking the power that Billy has now acquired, so when this larger than life hero shows up, goofing around and not really taking that power seriously, Dr Sivana goes after Shazam to try and take the power for himself.
From there, the rest of the movie is pretty much a cat and mouse chase between Sivana and Shazam across the city, up in the sky and down on the streets as they smash through shopping malls and buildings before culminating in a fairground showdown. It’s actually a lot more fun than it sounds, although the whole movie could probably benefit from having about 10-15 minutes cut from it. Also, the dark threat introduced so shockingly earlier on in the movie, suddenly doesn’t become so shocking or menacing towards the end. It’s indicative of the tone of the movie as a whole really, trying to remain rooted in the traditional DC gloom, but striving for family friendly box office success. These are all very minor negatives for me though – overall Shazam is a lot of fun and very lighthearted, with a lot to say about the importance of family. And the Boardman family had an absolute blast watching it!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bad Wigs aside it's really rather good
You could be forgiven for being rather sceptical walking into the cinema to see Aquaman, and it’s easy to see why. An uninspiring set of trailers preceded by the DCEU’s shall we say reluctance to resonate with audiences.
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Jan 17, 2018
Given that the premise to this movie focuses on the unsolved rape and murder of a teenage girl, you would be forgiven for thinking that Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri would be a bleak and depressing watch. And at times it is. This is by no means a happy movie and there is a lot of misery and upset that plagues the central characters. But, interwoven in all that is a dark comedic vibe that makes the script story and characters come to life in ways that I wasn’t expecting going in.
The film starts us off seven months after Mildred’s daughter’s death and we immediately get a sense of how frustrated she is that she’s had no answers or closure as to what happened. Her blame for this lies solely with the police department and as the man in charge, it’s Willoughby that initially is the target of her ire; his is the name that is plastered across billboard number 3. What follows is a story that is utterly engrossing for almost all of its run time. The cast here are across the board superb. Everyone here puts in a stellar performance but despite Sam Rockwell giving her a run for her money, this is Frances McDormand’s movie through and through. She’s utterly captivating in every second of screen time she gets which is all the more remarkable given that Mildred is not an easy role to play. She’s almost joyless given what has happened to her and her fractured family, yet her cynical and blunt nature allows for some wonderfully, sometimes uncomfortable, comedic moments that really help make the character one that feels oddly warm despite her cold hardened exterior.
I mentioned Rockwell too and this is the best I’ve seen him. Officer Dixon isn’t a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination. He’s a racist mother’s boy that has little care for his job or the people that he’s meant to be protecting. And yet despite his flaws, Rockwell makes him almost sympathetic. Dixon also ends up having what I think to be the best arc of the whole movie- something I would not have picked when he first appeared on the screen and showed what kind of man he is. Just naming these two seems like a detriment to everyone else as there isn’t anyone that puts a foot wrong. Harrelson for example is wonderful as Chief Willoughby and delivers a nuanced and understated performance that really made me feel for the character and the horrible things he’s going through. Even those with far smaller parts are memorable, such as Peter Dinklage as the alcoholic “town midget” with an unreciprocated crush.
Performances aside, Three Billboards would be nothing without a decent script and Martin McDonagh delivers that in spades. This is a sharp script that doesn’t waste a moment of dialogue. And there’s some fantastic lines here with laughs coming at the most unexpected moments and at the most unexpected of times. There’s an early zinger in a scene with Mildred and a priest at her home that took me by surprise with its crassness that seemed to perfectly suit the scene. McDonagh is also on directing duties and he is equally as impressive with that as he is with penning the screenplay. This is a beautifully shot film with the rural location and the small-town setting used perfectly. He never oversells a moment despite the fact there are a few moments where it would be possible to do so. One scene in particular featuring Mildred in perhaps her angriest moment of the movie could easily have been overblown, yet it’s somewhat subdued despite being the closest to an action sequence that we get.
If there’s issues to be found in Three Billboards, it would be, at least for me, its ending. Until just before the credits rolled, this was an easy perfect score film for me, yet it’s ambiguity with its conclusion left me feeling a little cold. It’s not that I need every story I experience to have a neat and clear-cut end, but this was one that I felt needed something more final to close it out. It almost feels like it ended too soon, like there were a few more minutes worth of story still to be told that for whatever reason ended up being removed from the final product. Of course, that’s not the case, but it’s hard not to feel like things are left incomplete in a way that is more frustrating than they are intriguing.
Verdict
Despite an ending that felt too abrupt, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri is a joy to watch. Brilliantly written, acted and directed, this is one of those movies that had me completely immersed in its world right from the start and had me gripped until the final frame. Highly recommended.
The film starts us off seven months after Mildred’s daughter’s death and we immediately get a sense of how frustrated she is that she’s had no answers or closure as to what happened. Her blame for this lies solely with the police department and as the man in charge, it’s Willoughby that initially is the target of her ire; his is the name that is plastered across billboard number 3. What follows is a story that is utterly engrossing for almost all of its run time. The cast here are across the board superb. Everyone here puts in a stellar performance but despite Sam Rockwell giving her a run for her money, this is Frances McDormand’s movie through and through. She’s utterly captivating in every second of screen time she gets which is all the more remarkable given that Mildred is not an easy role to play. She’s almost joyless given what has happened to her and her fractured family, yet her cynical and blunt nature allows for some wonderfully, sometimes uncomfortable, comedic moments that really help make the character one that feels oddly warm despite her cold hardened exterior.
I mentioned Rockwell too and this is the best I’ve seen him. Officer Dixon isn’t a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination. He’s a racist mother’s boy that has little care for his job or the people that he’s meant to be protecting. And yet despite his flaws, Rockwell makes him almost sympathetic. Dixon also ends up having what I think to be the best arc of the whole movie- something I would not have picked when he first appeared on the screen and showed what kind of man he is. Just naming these two seems like a detriment to everyone else as there isn’t anyone that puts a foot wrong. Harrelson for example is wonderful as Chief Willoughby and delivers a nuanced and understated performance that really made me feel for the character and the horrible things he’s going through. Even those with far smaller parts are memorable, such as Peter Dinklage as the alcoholic “town midget” with an unreciprocated crush.
Performances aside, Three Billboards would be nothing without a decent script and Martin McDonagh delivers that in spades. This is a sharp script that doesn’t waste a moment of dialogue. And there’s some fantastic lines here with laughs coming at the most unexpected moments and at the most unexpected of times. There’s an early zinger in a scene with Mildred and a priest at her home that took me by surprise with its crassness that seemed to perfectly suit the scene. McDonagh is also on directing duties and he is equally as impressive with that as he is with penning the screenplay. This is a beautifully shot film with the rural location and the small-town setting used perfectly. He never oversells a moment despite the fact there are a few moments where it would be possible to do so. One scene in particular featuring Mildred in perhaps her angriest moment of the movie could easily have been overblown, yet it’s somewhat subdued despite being the closest to an action sequence that we get.
If there’s issues to be found in Three Billboards, it would be, at least for me, its ending. Until just before the credits rolled, this was an easy perfect score film for me, yet it’s ambiguity with its conclusion left me feeling a little cold. It’s not that I need every story I experience to have a neat and clear-cut end, but this was one that I felt needed something more final to close it out. It almost feels like it ended too soon, like there were a few more minutes worth of story still to be told that for whatever reason ended up being removed from the final product. Of course, that’s not the case, but it’s hard not to feel like things are left incomplete in a way that is more frustrating than they are intriguing.
Verdict
Despite an ending that felt too abrupt, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri is a joy to watch. Brilliantly written, acted and directed, this is one of those movies that had me completely immersed in its world right from the start and had me gripped until the final frame. Highly recommended.