Search
"The door slid open and Clarke knew it was time to die." What a way to start the book. Kass Morgan dives right into her storyline with an in-your-face opener. It took a bit of time before I, as the reader realized what this book was about. She began by setting up a number of characters, switching between perspectives, to quickly introduce you to the players. Those people who will have the biggest impact upon the storyline.
Each character is thrown into the mix, destined to be sent to Earth. The first in a long, long time. While not all make it, we are still treated with back stories and past relationships. Had the author not included those scenes, her characters would have been much more difficult to relate to. You come to briefly understand what the person goes through, exactly why he/she is so angry and hurt, and what they each did to become subjected to the fate of the 100. Personally, I would have preferred that greater attention had been given to character development rather than relationship development.
The Earth was unlivable for so long, and yet they send these 100 "children" as guinea pigs, rather than trained professionals. People who could colonize, build shelters, feed the colony, study the land and environment, or even tend to the ill. Instead, these youths are forced to come together with a common goal - survival.
One gets to a certain point in the novel and then realizes they don't entirely know what these different living situations/names mean. Of course, the Walden and Arcadian people seem to be of a lower class, economic, and social standing than the Phoenix. Walden also had an outbreak at one point that had to be quarantined. But beyond that? I'm not entirely sure what the distinctions are. Clearly the Phoenix people are "posh", with foreign accents, prone to extravagances and taking what they have for granted. But how did they come to be in that, dare I say, caste to begins with? Were people settled based upon their original locations on Earth? Or perhaps based upon the money/knowledge they could provide? Unfortunately, that aspect of the story is not very clearly explained. It seems that the author took more time to focus on the intricacies of the relationships than the world building.
Sometimes the author was redundant, choosing to repeat the same fears/desire over and over again. Yes, we understand that the medicine is missing. Was it flung from the ship before the crash or during? Can they survive without it? We don't know yet, but if we didn't realize the medicine was important the first time it was mentioned... We certainly realized it after the tenth.
This book has a very unique concept in that it combines the post-apocalyptic Hunger Games or Divergent-type Earth with space. While it may exist in other novels, I've not yet read something similar. Where it does seem to follow typical YA novels is the fact that it has a love triangle. Those seem like they are a requirement, as they are in most popular young adult novels. (HG, Divergent, TMI, Vampire Diaries, etc.)
There is a bit of mystery in the book as well. It seems that the reason one of the characters is arrested must be kept a secret, even from the reader. The author continuously has the girl think to herself, 'Why isn't he asking me about my confinement?', 'He's happy, this is for the best [that he doesn't know.]', and even has her love interest say "I heard a rumor about a girl on Phoenix who was arrested for..." Yes, there was a dramatic pause. And no, he does not finish his sentence. After the third or fourth time, the author finally reveals the girl's situation during a flashback.
Throughout the novel, the author develops the relationship between two main characters. Unfortunately, it's a bit jarring and sporadic. It quickly jumps from bitter hatred from the moment they step foot on Earth to reconciliation after one act, then back to hatred. Again, after one act. While relationships can be a roller coaster, this is a bit too authentic to the carnival ride.
The relationship is not perfect, especially when she has a second possible love interest. A guy who after only a short while, thinks of only her before he falls asleep. That girl must be something. The first time they really spend any time together, he decides that making out is the best course of action. Much to the dismay of her other love interest, though it does not dissuade him. Sound familiar?
It doesn't take long before he snaps at her and their brief... Whatever it was is over. Or is it?
They must be masochists, because it seems they're just gluttons for punishment and emotional, gut wrenching hurt... Or just those that don't learn from history. (Doomed to repeat it and all that.) Who would continuously subject themselves to that kind of torment? Move on and let yourself heal. It's not a post-apocalyptic world that only the two of you can repopulate... There are other individuals in camp with you. (Like the second guy you may or may not like, but that you certainly make out with in the woods.) But that's just my perspective.
While I found myself bemused and skeptical at times about certain aspects of the book, none of those times corresponded to the purposefully exaggerated environment that they must adapt to on Earth. Rather it is the progression of relationships, situations characters find themselves in, and utterly disastrous karmic intervention. Seriously, they must have really messed with the world for it to so perfectly separate two lovers as it does.
I suspected there would be a particular plot twist and unsurprisingly it came to fruition approximately 98% of the way through the book. I'm intrigued to see where the author takes it and how it will develop in the sequel - The 100: Day
21 (which is next on my review list!)
I find myself enjoying the read, dispute the obvious flaws one notices whilst reading it. If you take it as an easy, enjoyable read - then that is what you will come away with. If you expect it to be a fantastic piece that delves into the human psyche to truly draw you into a character's life and relationships - then you will be quite disappointed. Overall, I would recommend this novel to those who enjoy dystopian, teen romance series.
Each character is thrown into the mix, destined to be sent to Earth. The first in a long, long time. While not all make it, we are still treated with back stories and past relationships. Had the author not included those scenes, her characters would have been much more difficult to relate to. You come to briefly understand what the person goes through, exactly why he/she is so angry and hurt, and what they each did to become subjected to the fate of the 100. Personally, I would have preferred that greater attention had been given to character development rather than relationship development.
The Earth was unlivable for so long, and yet they send these 100 "children" as guinea pigs, rather than trained professionals. People who could colonize, build shelters, feed the colony, study the land and environment, or even tend to the ill. Instead, these youths are forced to come together with a common goal - survival.
One gets to a certain point in the novel and then realizes they don't entirely know what these different living situations/names mean. Of course, the Walden and Arcadian people seem to be of a lower class, economic, and social standing than the Phoenix. Walden also had an outbreak at one point that had to be quarantined. But beyond that? I'm not entirely sure what the distinctions are. Clearly the Phoenix people are "posh", with foreign accents, prone to extravagances and taking what they have for granted. But how did they come to be in that, dare I say, caste to begins with? Were people settled based upon their original locations on Earth? Or perhaps based upon the money/knowledge they could provide? Unfortunately, that aspect of the story is not very clearly explained. It seems that the author took more time to focus on the intricacies of the relationships than the world building.
Sometimes the author was redundant, choosing to repeat the same fears/desire over and over again. Yes, we understand that the medicine is missing. Was it flung from the ship before the crash or during? Can they survive without it? We don't know yet, but if we didn't realize the medicine was important the first time it was mentioned... We certainly realized it after the tenth.
This book has a very unique concept in that it combines the post-apocalyptic Hunger Games or Divergent-type Earth with space. While it may exist in other novels, I've not yet read something similar. Where it does seem to follow typical YA novels is the fact that it has a love triangle. Those seem like they are a requirement, as they are in most popular young adult novels. (HG, Divergent, TMI, Vampire Diaries, etc.)
There is a bit of mystery in the book as well. It seems that the reason one of the characters is arrested must be kept a secret, even from the reader. The author continuously has the girl think to herself, 'Why isn't he asking me about my confinement?', 'He's happy, this is for the best [that he doesn't know.]', and even has her love interest say "I heard a rumor about a girl on Phoenix who was arrested for..." Yes, there was a dramatic pause. And no, he does not finish his sentence. After the third or fourth time, the author finally reveals the girl's situation during a flashback.
Throughout the novel, the author develops the relationship between two main characters. Unfortunately, it's a bit jarring and sporadic. It quickly jumps from bitter hatred from the moment they step foot on Earth to reconciliation after one act, then back to hatred. Again, after one act. While relationships can be a roller coaster, this is a bit too authentic to the carnival ride.
The relationship is not perfect, especially when she has a second possible love interest. A guy who after only a short while, thinks of only her before he falls asleep. That girl must be something. The first time they really spend any time together, he decides that making out is the best course of action. Much to the dismay of her other love interest, though it does not dissuade him. Sound familiar?
It doesn't take long before he snaps at her and their brief... Whatever it was is over. Or is it?
They must be masochists, because it seems they're just gluttons for punishment and emotional, gut wrenching hurt... Or just those that don't learn from history. (Doomed to repeat it and all that.) Who would continuously subject themselves to that kind of torment? Move on and let yourself heal. It's not a post-apocalyptic world that only the two of you can repopulate... There are other individuals in camp with you. (Like the second guy you may or may not like, but that you certainly make out with in the woods.) But that's just my perspective.
While I found myself bemused and skeptical at times about certain aspects of the book, none of those times corresponded to the purposefully exaggerated environment that they must adapt to on Earth. Rather it is the progression of relationships, situations characters find themselves in, and utterly disastrous karmic intervention. Seriously, they must have really messed with the world for it to so perfectly separate two lovers as it does.
I suspected there would be a particular plot twist and unsurprisingly it came to fruition approximately 98% of the way through the book. I'm intrigued to see where the author takes it and how it will develop in the sequel - The 100: Day
21 (which is next on my review list!)
I find myself enjoying the read, dispute the obvious flaws one notices whilst reading it. If you take it as an easy, enjoyable read - then that is what you will come away with. If you expect it to be a fantastic piece that delves into the human psyche to truly draw you into a character's life and relationships - then you will be quite disappointed. Overall, I would recommend this novel to those who enjoy dystopian, teen romance series.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Grandma's Garden
Games and Education
App
Join this charming dancing Grandma and all her silly veggies for fun adventures in the garden! She...
Preschool! & Toddler kids learning Abby Games free
Education and Games
App
***** Parents‘ Choice Awards’ winner ***** Developed by an award-winning education studios,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pixie (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
Olivia Cooke - utterly enchanting (1 more)
Just the right balance of black humour and Tarantino-esque violence
Once upon a Time in the West... of Ireland
You know sometimes when you see a trailer you think "oh yeah - this is a must see"! The trailer for "Pixie" (see below) was one such moment for me. A spaghetti western set in Sligo? With Alec Baldwin as a "deadly gangster priest"? Yes, yes, yes!
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Host (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In Stephanie Meyer’s adult sci-fi novel “The Host”, Melanie is one of the few remaining humans on Earth who hasn’t been physically taken over by a Soul. Souls are parasitic aliens that are surgically implanted into humans and take over the host body. In most cases, all that remains of the human are their memories. But not in Melanie’s case. Pursued by human-hunting Souls called “Seekers”, Melanie (Saoirse Ronan) launches herself out of a window to escape capture, but miraculously survives the fall to be captured anyway. In the hands of the aliens, Melanie is implanted with a Soul called “Wanderer” who finds herself fighting internally with her host who is alive and well in the Wanderer’s head.
It’s Wanderer’s job to dig through Melanie’s memories to find out where other humans, like Melanie’s brother Jamie and boyfriend Jared are hiding. Melanie is uncooperative and Wanderer is soon convinced she needs to be removed from Melanie’s body. But no one wants the information on the humans more than the head Seeker (Diane Kruger). Neither Melanie nor Wanderer trust Seeker to not replace Wanderer with herself, so Melanie/Wanderer escape to find a Healer who can remove Wanderer from Melanie. On the way, Melanie convinces Wanderer to help her find her Uncle Jeb whom Melanie, Jamie and Jared had been seeking before Melanie was captured.
It’s Uncle Jeb who eventually discovers his lost and dehydrated niece and takes her to his hideout, a network of caves inside an inactive volcano that houses about 3 dozen humans. There Melanie is reunited with her little brother and her boyfriend, but is soundly rejected by her Jared when he realizes she’s host to a Soul. Wanderer has to win the humans trust, which is difficult, to say the least, when all the humans want to do is kill her. This includes a boy named Ian who, after attempting to choke Wanderer to death, finds himself attracted to Wanderer, much to Jared and Melanie’s consternation.
If this review hasn’t put you to sleep already, congratulations! There’s a slight chance then that you’ll make it through the movie. While Ronan plays Melanie/Wanderer beautifully, hers was the only performance that had some semblance of emotion. Even John Hurt, who plays Uncle Jeb, looked like he had just enough energy and interest to utter a few words simply for laughs. Jared, played by Max Irons (yes, Jeremy’s son) is adequately sigh-worthy, as indicated by the teens present, and so is Ian, played by Jake Abel albeit in a less brooding manner.
While the Souls are supposed to be a peaceful race, Kruger’s Seeker is deadly intent on finding Wanderer. This is the film’s only true conflict and it’s lackluster at best. One moviegoer who read the book said the movie followed the novel closely, but the movie did away with quite a few ancillary characters. I think my husband said it best when he told me, “I never thought I’d utter these words, but Twilight was better.” Just like Twilight rewrote vampire and werewolf mythology, The Host tries to portray the story’s aliens as harmless, peaceful invaders. For someone who grew up with the Alien franchise, I think it was difficult for my husband to accept the delicate, fluttery, dandelion-esque Souls and their “peaceful” assault on Earth, much less the awkward teenage love triangle. Or square, rather.
Not having read the book yet, I went into the movie with little more than a synopsis of the plot. I had no expectations so I wasn’t terribly disappointed by the movie but I must admit I struggled more than usual to stay awake. Most of those in the audience who read the book seemed okay with its theatrical adaptation but that’s just it. No one was wowed and there was an almost tangible malaise to the crowd as we exited the theater. These advance screeners are promoted to create buzz, and good movies literally have that excited buzz as the audience exits the theater. The only buzz after this movie was the static caused by the slow shuffle of feet as we piled out of the theater. If you’re a true Meyer fan, I’m sure there’s no stopping you from catching this movie but if you’re not, there’s really no compelling you to watch.
It’s Wanderer’s job to dig through Melanie’s memories to find out where other humans, like Melanie’s brother Jamie and boyfriend Jared are hiding. Melanie is uncooperative and Wanderer is soon convinced she needs to be removed from Melanie’s body. But no one wants the information on the humans more than the head Seeker (Diane Kruger). Neither Melanie nor Wanderer trust Seeker to not replace Wanderer with herself, so Melanie/Wanderer escape to find a Healer who can remove Wanderer from Melanie. On the way, Melanie convinces Wanderer to help her find her Uncle Jeb whom Melanie, Jamie and Jared had been seeking before Melanie was captured.
It’s Uncle Jeb who eventually discovers his lost and dehydrated niece and takes her to his hideout, a network of caves inside an inactive volcano that houses about 3 dozen humans. There Melanie is reunited with her little brother and her boyfriend, but is soundly rejected by her Jared when he realizes she’s host to a Soul. Wanderer has to win the humans trust, which is difficult, to say the least, when all the humans want to do is kill her. This includes a boy named Ian who, after attempting to choke Wanderer to death, finds himself attracted to Wanderer, much to Jared and Melanie’s consternation.
If this review hasn’t put you to sleep already, congratulations! There’s a slight chance then that you’ll make it through the movie. While Ronan plays Melanie/Wanderer beautifully, hers was the only performance that had some semblance of emotion. Even John Hurt, who plays Uncle Jeb, looked like he had just enough energy and interest to utter a few words simply for laughs. Jared, played by Max Irons (yes, Jeremy’s son) is adequately sigh-worthy, as indicated by the teens present, and so is Ian, played by Jake Abel albeit in a less brooding manner.
While the Souls are supposed to be a peaceful race, Kruger’s Seeker is deadly intent on finding Wanderer. This is the film’s only true conflict and it’s lackluster at best. One moviegoer who read the book said the movie followed the novel closely, but the movie did away with quite a few ancillary characters. I think my husband said it best when he told me, “I never thought I’d utter these words, but Twilight was better.” Just like Twilight rewrote vampire and werewolf mythology, The Host tries to portray the story’s aliens as harmless, peaceful invaders. For someone who grew up with the Alien franchise, I think it was difficult for my husband to accept the delicate, fluttery, dandelion-esque Souls and their “peaceful” assault on Earth, much less the awkward teenage love triangle. Or square, rather.
Not having read the book yet, I went into the movie with little more than a synopsis of the plot. I had no expectations so I wasn’t terribly disappointed by the movie but I must admit I struggled more than usual to stay awake. Most of those in the audience who read the book seemed okay with its theatrical adaptation but that’s just it. No one was wowed and there was an almost tangible malaise to the crowd as we exited the theater. These advance screeners are promoted to create buzz, and good movies literally have that excited buzz as the audience exits the theater. The only buzz after this movie was the static caused by the slow shuffle of feet as we piled out of the theater. If you’re a true Meyer fan, I’m sure there’s no stopping you from catching this movie but if you’re not, there’s really no compelling you to watch.
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It’s very nostalgic – will people like it?”
A little film. Not sure whether you might have heard of it yet? Damien Chazelle has followed up his astonishingly proficient “Whiplash” – my top film of 2015 – with a sure-fire theatre-filler in “La La Land”. The old-fashioned musical extravaganza is back, and back with style!
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.