Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why in Books
May 23, 2017
Trigger Warning
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, Thirteen Reasons Why was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about Thirteen Reasons Why, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether Thirteen Reasons Why is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that Thirteen Reasons Why will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, Thirteen Reasons Why was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about Thirteen Reasons Why, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether Thirteen Reasons Why is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that Thirteen Reasons Why will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Season 11 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
Sheer insanity (2 more)
Witty writing
Brilliant characters
Sometimes shocking, sometimes disgusting, always hilarious
When I was in college I had a mate who recommended this show constantly for the best part of a year. As much as he was my mate though, he was into some pretty weird stuff… like anime. So it’s fair to say I didn’t really trust his judgement on pop culture. Then one day I saw the show while browsing on Netflix and realised that each episode was only 20 minutes long, so I dived in not knowing what to expect and I was so pleasantly surprised with what I found. The first season of the show seems fairly tame in hindsight, but upon first viewing I was blown away by the fast pace of the show, the clever editing and timing of each episode and the outrageous yet witty lines that the characters spout. It is the second season though that the show really comes into its own, with the introduction of Danny DeVito and the transition of Sweet Dee who goes from the closest possible thing to a voice of reason in season 1, to a full blown narcissist by the end of Season 2. Really the characters are what make this show, how borderline insane they all are and their dynamic between one another is side splitting. Dennis starts off the show as the most normal person in the group, he is definitely the most relatable character for the first few seasons, but eventually him spending so much time with the rest of the group drives him insane, to the point where he becomes pretty sinister and constantly on the edge. Then there is Mac, Dennis’ best friend, he is the macho one in the group, obsessed with protecting the bar and having to throw out some ‘karate,’ moves when necessary. He is definitely one of the funniest parts of the show and his extreme Catholicism and questionable sexual preference also add to his evolution throughout the series. Charlie is the one that starts off the most insane at the start of the show, but I actually think that the rest of the gang slowly overtake him in terms of insanity as the show progresses, as he stays fairly consistently insane throughout. That’s not to say he isn’t still absolutely batshit though, he is a total degenerate, but there is a certain charm to him that can’t be denied and he sure is committed to his job of being a janitor. Sweet Dee starts off the show as the voice of reason, but she quickly descends to a similar level of degeneration as the show goes on and she is hilarious in every scene she is in. Lastly there is Frank, Dee and Dennis’ dad… possibly. He is incredible in this show, in fact I would go as far as to say that this could be the funniest that Danny DeVito has ever been onscreen. Frank is an insane man-child who shares a bed with Charlie, who there is also a chance of being his son. The side characters are also excellent and most of them have them have their own development as the show progresses. There is Rickety Cricket, the priest turned hobo that the gang went to school with, Gail the Snail, who is just vulgar in every way and the inbred psychotic McPoyles. Each episode follows the gang attempting some kind of scheme to benefit their own selfish gain, but they usually end up worse off than when the episode began. If you are looking for sheer insanity combined with witty, obscene writing, then you should definitely check this one out. There are currently 11 seasons of the show so far and it has recently been renewed for another two, so there is a marathon of belly laughing to get through and every minute of it is more ridiculous than the last.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019
Almost a good movie
One of my favorite films of 2018 is A QUIET PLACE where aliens with extreme hearing can get you if you make a noise. It is a quite interesting and well made film (with a bravura performance by Emily Blunt), so when I heard there was a variant of this theme (this time you can't use your eyes), I decided to check it out and to see if Sandra Bullock could pull off the same sort of bravura performance as Blunt.
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Black Summer - Season 1 in TV
May 1, 2019
A refreshing new take on the familiar zombie format
I gave up on The Walking Dead a few seasons ago. Continually disappointing story-lines and characters, along with frustrating pacing issues had made this show hard work to watch, and a far cry from it's early days of action packed originality. Black Summer recently arrived on Netflix, described as a companion piece to the show Z Nation, and consisting of just 8 episodes ranging in length from 20 to 40 minutes. After seeing some online recommendations, I gave it a shot, and it's safe to say that it has reignited my passion for zombie shows.
We're in the fairly early stages of a full on zombie apocalypse. The military are evacuating a small town, taking survivors to a nearby stadium for safety and eventual extraction. There's a lot of panic and confusion, and not a great deal of undead around at first in the mostly deserted town. The first episode is broken into smaller, titled scenes, introducing us to single characters or groups who are located about the town, and it's a style of story telling that continues throughout the season. Some episodes focus on a single character while some focus on a particular mission, with different scenes shot from the perspective of different characters, highlighting how their actions affect others. There's not a single character who is more important than the others in the show, and characters can be lost to the undead in the blink of an eye, with new ones immediately taking their place to become core characters.
Black Summer shares some of its ideas with The Walking Dead, not to mention many other zombie movies and shows. The virus which turns you into a zombie appears to be there within all of us, lying dormant, so you don't necessarily need to die from a zombie bite in order to become one. Turning is pretty much instantaneous too, and the resulting zombies are of the more vicious, faster and cleverer kind. Running, climbing, very determined and able to learn in order to catch you whatever it takes. Luckily then, it's not very often that our characters are having to deal with more than just a few of these things at any one time, which helps to keep things more focused and terrifying.
Black Summer is very dialogue light - something which definitely works in its favour, and is a refreshing change to the long conversations and monologuing of TWD. Many of the scenes are single camera shots, following our characters around and really immersing you in the action. It's taking a simple idea and giving it a fresh spin, providing the viewer with a harrowing and intensely enjoyable thrill ride. For me, the perfect example of this is the episode titled 'Alone', where an unlucky coward called Lance finds himself all alone after escaping a school. He meanders around town before picking up the pace when a zombie decides that it wants to feed on him. I spent a pretty intense 30 minutes just wishing this poor guy would find himself a weapon and catch a break. But even when he does, he manages to blow his chance and lose it again! It's a standout episode, and a perfect example of what I love about this show.
I couldn't really fault a single episode of Black Summer, as it builds towards it's intense but relatively short finale where a number of survivors converge on the stadium, while zombies come at them from all directions. I really hope it gets renewed, and I really hope it continues to find ways to remain original and enjoyable too.
We're in the fairly early stages of a full on zombie apocalypse. The military are evacuating a small town, taking survivors to a nearby stadium for safety and eventual extraction. There's a lot of panic and confusion, and not a great deal of undead around at first in the mostly deserted town. The first episode is broken into smaller, titled scenes, introducing us to single characters or groups who are located about the town, and it's a style of story telling that continues throughout the season. Some episodes focus on a single character while some focus on a particular mission, with different scenes shot from the perspective of different characters, highlighting how their actions affect others. There's not a single character who is more important than the others in the show, and characters can be lost to the undead in the blink of an eye, with new ones immediately taking their place to become core characters.
Black Summer shares some of its ideas with The Walking Dead, not to mention many other zombie movies and shows. The virus which turns you into a zombie appears to be there within all of us, lying dormant, so you don't necessarily need to die from a zombie bite in order to become one. Turning is pretty much instantaneous too, and the resulting zombies are of the more vicious, faster and cleverer kind. Running, climbing, very determined and able to learn in order to catch you whatever it takes. Luckily then, it's not very often that our characters are having to deal with more than just a few of these things at any one time, which helps to keep things more focused and terrifying.
Black Summer is very dialogue light - something which definitely works in its favour, and is a refreshing change to the long conversations and monologuing of TWD. Many of the scenes are single camera shots, following our characters around and really immersing you in the action. It's taking a simple idea and giving it a fresh spin, providing the viewer with a harrowing and intensely enjoyable thrill ride. For me, the perfect example of this is the episode titled 'Alone', where an unlucky coward called Lance finds himself all alone after escaping a school. He meanders around town before picking up the pace when a zombie decides that it wants to feed on him. I spent a pretty intense 30 minutes just wishing this poor guy would find himself a weapon and catch a break. But even when he does, he manages to blow his chance and lose it again! It's a standout episode, and a perfect example of what I love about this show.
I couldn't really fault a single episode of Black Summer, as it builds towards it's intense but relatively short finale where a number of survivors converge on the stadium, while zombies come at them from all directions. I really hope it gets renewed, and I really hope it continues to find ways to remain original and enjoyable too.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Gareth Michael Lewis (6 KP) rated Star Trek: Discovery in TV
Feb 26, 2018
Not the Star Trek we've come to know...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I did not have high hopes for this new series. I read every snippet of news about reshoots, cast changes, problems, etc. and I really could not see this new series living up to the ideals of all the Treks gone by. That said, I sat and watched it each week on Netflix and tried, really tried, to keep an open mind.
To begin, this series IS Star Trek. It has the ships. It has the Federation. It has the USS Enterprise (mentioned and seen). So why all the fuss?
Well, firstly, we have the Klingons. They look nothing like their predecessors in any other show. Alright, in The Original Series (TOS) they looked like fake-tanned, mustachioed humans and then they had forehead ridges in The Motion Picture and Next Generation (TNG) and we got over that quickly enough (they even explained why the ridgless Klingons existed in Star Trek Enterprise). Why the hostility towards the new Klingons in STD? Is it because they took an iconic villian and remade them for a more modern audience? Changing the appearance of ships, costumes and make-up along the way? Apparently so. But what series hasn't updated their villains as technology allows them to? Doctor Who's TARDIS has changed appearance more than once as have the Daleks. Didn't Battlestar Galactica face similar issues with the rebooted series? Of course. But we Trekkies can be an unforgiving bunch. Move past the updates to ships, uniforms and even aliens and judge the show on its own merits.
That leads us to the next bit.
Network executives seem to think that a more modern audience needs something edgier to keep them interested. So STD contains bloody violence, torture, f-words, naked Klingon sex (I did not need to see Klingon, armour-plated boobs) and is clearly made for an "adult" audience. My introduction to Star Trek was TNG, and I went back to TOS because I loved it. Then onto DS9 and Voyager. Even Enterprise, which played with established canon like a child in a sandpit, felt like something I'd let my kids watch. STD is like Game of Thrones in space, just with less incest. My kids will not be allowed to see this until they are much, much older.
The show itself is very pretty to look at, acted capably by almost everyone who has screentime and has characters I grew to genuinely like, but the writing was lazy. We were promised a Federation/Klingon war then somehow missed the whole thing by the final episode. The final episode itself seemed like an exercise in "how to end a season quickly and in the least satisfying way possible".
I wanted to give this series a higher score, I really did. I moved it from 7 to 6 and back to 7 again and again until I stuck with 6 because, although it has moments of brilliance, these moments are telegraphed so far in advance of happening you just can't bring yourself to be surprised by any of it. Almost every plot twist is so obvious that the writers seem to be waiting for a pat on the back at how cleverly they revealed the twist to you rather than trying to genuinely amaze you. It had such potential, it really did. The opening credits are beautiful, the music perfect. The ships are great (I play Star Trek Online so updated ships don't faze me that much). The crew are awesome, with dynamics that shift wonderfully and made me want to see more. But... alas.
If you want to watch a Star Trek series that pushes sci-fi, political and societal boundaries then go back and watch TOS, TNG, DS9 or even Voyager. If you want to watch a "Star Trek" series that does all of that for a modern audience... watch The Orville.
To begin, this series IS Star Trek. It has the ships. It has the Federation. It has the USS Enterprise (mentioned and seen). So why all the fuss?
Well, firstly, we have the Klingons. They look nothing like their predecessors in any other show. Alright, in The Original Series (TOS) they looked like fake-tanned, mustachioed humans and then they had forehead ridges in The Motion Picture and Next Generation (TNG) and we got over that quickly enough (they even explained why the ridgless Klingons existed in Star Trek Enterprise). Why the hostility towards the new Klingons in STD? Is it because they took an iconic villian and remade them for a more modern audience? Changing the appearance of ships, costumes and make-up along the way? Apparently so. But what series hasn't updated their villains as technology allows them to? Doctor Who's TARDIS has changed appearance more than once as have the Daleks. Didn't Battlestar Galactica face similar issues with the rebooted series? Of course. But we Trekkies can be an unforgiving bunch. Move past the updates to ships, uniforms and even aliens and judge the show on its own merits.
That leads us to the next bit.
Network executives seem to think that a more modern audience needs something edgier to keep them interested. So STD contains bloody violence, torture, f-words, naked Klingon sex (I did not need to see Klingon, armour-plated boobs) and is clearly made for an "adult" audience. My introduction to Star Trek was TNG, and I went back to TOS because I loved it. Then onto DS9 and Voyager. Even Enterprise, which played with established canon like a child in a sandpit, felt like something I'd let my kids watch. STD is like Game of Thrones in space, just with less incest. My kids will not be allowed to see this until they are much, much older.
The show itself is very pretty to look at, acted capably by almost everyone who has screentime and has characters I grew to genuinely like, but the writing was lazy. We were promised a Federation/Klingon war then somehow missed the whole thing by the final episode. The final episode itself seemed like an exercise in "how to end a season quickly and in the least satisfying way possible".
I wanted to give this series a higher score, I really did. I moved it from 7 to 6 and back to 7 again and again until I stuck with 6 because, although it has moments of brilliance, these moments are telegraphed so far in advance of happening you just can't bring yourself to be surprised by any of it. Almost every plot twist is so obvious that the writers seem to be waiting for a pat on the back at how cleverly they revealed the twist to you rather than trying to genuinely amaze you. It had such potential, it really did. The opening credits are beautiful, the music perfect. The ships are great (I play Star Trek Online so updated ships don't faze me that much). The crew are awesome, with dynamics that shift wonderfully and made me want to see more. But... alas.
If you want to watch a Star Trek series that pushes sci-fi, political and societal boundaries then go back and watch TOS, TNG, DS9 or even Voyager. If you want to watch a "Star Trek" series that does all of that for a modern audience... watch The Orville.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i>, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i>, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
The top billing cast on IMDb read like my top list of reasons not to see a film. Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet... all are raved about by various people but all have their own quirks that I can't stand to watch on screen. Chalamet did redeem himself with The King earlier this year for Netflix but none of the others have done anything recently to sway me.
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
