Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
May 26, 2021
Back in 1961; Disney adapted the 1056 Novel The Hundred and One Dalmatians and in doing so; crafted a beloved animated classic and introduced the world at large to Cruella De Vil. The film has not only endured but has spawned television series, a direct to video sequel, merchandise, and two live-action versions.
Despite being delayed due to the Pandemic; Disney has scheduled the much-anticipated “Cruella” for release and I am happy to announce that the film is a Wickedly Delicious new entry into the series.
The story follows young Estella as she and her mom plan to start a new life in London in the 1960s. When tragedy strikes, the young girl finds herself on the streets and working a life of crime and grift with fellow street kids Jasper and Horace.
Flash forward to the 1970s and Estella (Emma Stone) toils away in a store cleaning while hoping for her shot in the world of fashion. When fate arrives and places Estella in the path of vain, self-centered, and vicious fashion magnate The Baroness (Emma Thompson); who hires Estella to begin her career in fashion.
The savage way The Baroness treats those around her intimidates Estella but her friends Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser); see this as an opportunity to rob from The Baroness and this places them at odds with Estella as her designs start to gain traction.
When situations clarify and things begin to evolve into a mission of revenge; Estella transforms into Cruella which had long been the name associated with the darker side of her personality.
Cruella takes the fashion world by storm for her innovative looks, bold designs, and theatrical events which upstage the Baroness at major fashion events.
With her sales and reputation in decline, The Baroness declares war on Cruella which sets a dark and sinister series of events into motion which drives the film into darker content then one may expect from a Disney film.
The cast is very strong as Stone and Thompson are amazing as they are both wicked and captivating without ever going to far over the top or extreme with their characters. The supporting cast is great as well as Fry who was hysterical in the series Plebs brings a depth to Jasper which takes him above just being a stumbling sidekick.
Mark Strong also does great work and elevated all the scenes in which he was in with his strong presence. While at first I wondered if we really needed to have this part of Cruella’s life told; the story is engaging and the cast is fantastic which makes this movie dark and delightful.
While elements of it may not be ideal for younger viewers; the story was captivating and the performances were amazingly engaging.
The film ran about two hours and 10 minutes and seemed a bit long in one segment but the film does regroup brings the story home. There is a mid-credit scene audiences will want to stay for as it was an unexpected and very charming nod to what is to come and is not to be missed.
It will be interesting to see if the film is the hit that I expect it to be if Disney will consider more films in the series as it would be amazing to see this cast return for further wickedly dark adventures.
4 stars out of 5
Despite being delayed due to the Pandemic; Disney has scheduled the much-anticipated “Cruella” for release and I am happy to announce that the film is a Wickedly Delicious new entry into the series.
The story follows young Estella as she and her mom plan to start a new life in London in the 1960s. When tragedy strikes, the young girl finds herself on the streets and working a life of crime and grift with fellow street kids Jasper and Horace.
Flash forward to the 1970s and Estella (Emma Stone) toils away in a store cleaning while hoping for her shot in the world of fashion. When fate arrives and places Estella in the path of vain, self-centered, and vicious fashion magnate The Baroness (Emma Thompson); who hires Estella to begin her career in fashion.
The savage way The Baroness treats those around her intimidates Estella but her friends Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser); see this as an opportunity to rob from The Baroness and this places them at odds with Estella as her designs start to gain traction.
When situations clarify and things begin to evolve into a mission of revenge; Estella transforms into Cruella which had long been the name associated with the darker side of her personality.
Cruella takes the fashion world by storm for her innovative looks, bold designs, and theatrical events which upstage the Baroness at major fashion events.
With her sales and reputation in decline, The Baroness declares war on Cruella which sets a dark and sinister series of events into motion which drives the film into darker content then one may expect from a Disney film.
The cast is very strong as Stone and Thompson are amazing as they are both wicked and captivating without ever going to far over the top or extreme with their characters. The supporting cast is great as well as Fry who was hysterical in the series Plebs brings a depth to Jasper which takes him above just being a stumbling sidekick.
Mark Strong also does great work and elevated all the scenes in which he was in with his strong presence. While at first I wondered if we really needed to have this part of Cruella’s life told; the story is engaging and the cast is fantastic which makes this movie dark and delightful.
While elements of it may not be ideal for younger viewers; the story was captivating and the performances were amazingly engaging.
The film ran about two hours and 10 minutes and seemed a bit long in one segment but the film does regroup brings the story home. There is a mid-credit scene audiences will want to stay for as it was an unexpected and very charming nod to what is to come and is not to be missed.
It will be interesting to see if the film is the hit that I expect it to be if Disney will consider more films in the series as it would be amazing to see this cast return for further wickedly dark adventures.
4 stars out of 5
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Cooler (2003) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
C is for Cash Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a tribute to Sue Grafton, I shall use the alphabet to inspire catchy titles. Because I am a nerd like that. Caution, ye land lubbers: ahead be spoilers. Proceed at your own risk.
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated The Toll (Arc of a Scythe, #3) in Books
Feb 5, 2020
Characters (3 more)
Worldbuilding
Plot
Pacing
A fantasic finale
After the amazing cliffhanger of Thunderhead, I rushed to pick up this because I just HAD TO KNOW. This cover is even prettier, they really nailed this series (sans the transformers font) and I hope it inspires more YA books to hire illustrators and not photo manip garbage. I'm an Illustrator though, so I'm biased. This review will have spoilers for Thunderhead, so don't read if you haven't read that!
The Toll picks up immediately after Thunderhead. Goddard has returned the MidMerica, no one knows that he was demoted to apprentice and with the death of Scythe Curie he stands uncontested for replacing Xenocrates. Anastasia and Rowan rest at the bottom of the ocean, and Goddard has made the site a site of remembrance to avoid any evidence being drudged up. The sinking of Endura is also squarely blamed on Rowan, and the world suffers as the Thunderhead punishes everyone, marking them unsavory. Cutting off communication with all but one, our former unsavory, Greyson.
With the rise of Goddard, the Schism amongst the Scythedom widens. He seizes more power, overturns rules and makes new ones and slowly starts taking control of other nations. Dubbing himself the Overblade. The story arches over 3 years post Thunderhead, and we jump around a little bit. During the three years Goddard continues to take a chokehold on the world, Greyson suddenly finds himself a living god amongst the tonists and humanity, as the only one able to speak to the thunderhead, he takes on the role of the Tonist's mythological figure, The Toll. Acting as a go-between, and manipulating those around him to fulfill the Thunderhead's goals.
Meanwhile, Faraday continues his search for the land of nod, making serious headway and discovering something that makes the Thunderhead uncertain. So the Thunderhead starts making plans. Faraday finds himself stranded with his helper, far away from the Scythedom, the Thunderhead and the horrible things that have been happening far away. He knows nothing of the fate of Marie, Goddard, Citra, Rowan, or the world. Finally, in the third year since the sinking of Endura, Rowan and Citra are raised from the depths, squirreled away by the Amazonian Scythes before Goddard knows they aren't dead. Being raised from the dead did wonders for Goddard's cause, so can Anastaisa's return do wonders for the plight of the old guard? But first Anastasia must plan and play her cards right, digging deep in the Thunderheads back brain to piece together mysteries long since written off and uncover the secrets of the Scythedom.
This book was really good, and a very satisfying finale to the series. The already rich worldbuilding is made richer by his choice to cut the world off from the Thunderhead, showing us what happens when people lose their connection to the world. He believably shows the influence one charismatic politician can have, and how easy it is for things to fall into disarray. You can tell he had a gameplan when he wrote these books, because everything comes together just right, not loose ends, everything had a purpose. Characters are tested, grow and develop. New parts of the world are further explored, completing the picture he begun in the other two books. I thoroughly enjoyed his take on the age-old sci-fi trope of "How does the benevolent computer protect humans from themselves". Well written, and elevated, especially in terms of other YA fiction. Shusterman really wrote a fantastic series. Once again, the romance is understated, but the emotions run deep enough at this point to pull at your heartstrings and make you believe in their love, even if it came from somewhat unbelievable beginnings.
This series is well worth the read, and a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale and formulaic YA world.
The Toll picks up immediately after Thunderhead. Goddard has returned the MidMerica, no one knows that he was demoted to apprentice and with the death of Scythe Curie he stands uncontested for replacing Xenocrates. Anastasia and Rowan rest at the bottom of the ocean, and Goddard has made the site a site of remembrance to avoid any evidence being drudged up. The sinking of Endura is also squarely blamed on Rowan, and the world suffers as the Thunderhead punishes everyone, marking them unsavory. Cutting off communication with all but one, our former unsavory, Greyson.
With the rise of Goddard, the Schism amongst the Scythedom widens. He seizes more power, overturns rules and makes new ones and slowly starts taking control of other nations. Dubbing himself the Overblade. The story arches over 3 years post Thunderhead, and we jump around a little bit. During the three years Goddard continues to take a chokehold on the world, Greyson suddenly finds himself a living god amongst the tonists and humanity, as the only one able to speak to the thunderhead, he takes on the role of the Tonist's mythological figure, The Toll. Acting as a go-between, and manipulating those around him to fulfill the Thunderhead's goals.
Meanwhile, Faraday continues his search for the land of nod, making serious headway and discovering something that makes the Thunderhead uncertain. So the Thunderhead starts making plans. Faraday finds himself stranded with his helper, far away from the Scythedom, the Thunderhead and the horrible things that have been happening far away. He knows nothing of the fate of Marie, Goddard, Citra, Rowan, or the world. Finally, in the third year since the sinking of Endura, Rowan and Citra are raised from the depths, squirreled away by the Amazonian Scythes before Goddard knows they aren't dead. Being raised from the dead did wonders for Goddard's cause, so can Anastaisa's return do wonders for the plight of the old guard? But first Anastasia must plan and play her cards right, digging deep in the Thunderheads back brain to piece together mysteries long since written off and uncover the secrets of the Scythedom.
This book was really good, and a very satisfying finale to the series. The already rich worldbuilding is made richer by his choice to cut the world off from the Thunderhead, showing us what happens when people lose their connection to the world. He believably shows the influence one charismatic politician can have, and how easy it is for things to fall into disarray. You can tell he had a gameplan when he wrote these books, because everything comes together just right, not loose ends, everything had a purpose. Characters are tested, grow and develop. New parts of the world are further explored, completing the picture he begun in the other two books. I thoroughly enjoyed his take on the age-old sci-fi trope of "How does the benevolent computer protect humans from themselves". Well written, and elevated, especially in terms of other YA fiction. Shusterman really wrote a fantastic series. Once again, the romance is understated, but the emotions run deep enough at this point to pull at your heartstrings and make you believe in their love, even if it came from somewhat unbelievable beginnings.
This series is well worth the read, and a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale and formulaic YA world.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Rum Diary (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
For those unfamiliar with Hunter S. Thompson’s work (as I am), you may not recognize that this movie is based on his book of the same title, first published in 1998. Hunter S. Thompson is the same author who gave us the novel for which the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was based on.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
Multi-Asset Investing: A Practitioner's Framework
Pranay Gupta, Sven R. Skallsjo and Bing Li
Book
Despite the accepted fact that a substantial part of the risk and return of any portfolio comes from...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sound of Metal (2019) in Movies
Mar 22, 2021
Rooted in Humanity
SOUND OF METAL has a pretty simple “one-line summary”: Heavy Metal Drummer deals with going deaf. But is it the humanity at the center of this film that makes it worthwhile.
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Beyond the Red (Beyond the Red, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
I can be trusted with responsibilities again! the reviewer says as she slowly climbs out of the reviewing hiatus hole.
You're delusional, the hiatus whispers menacingly, just a voice from the dark depths. You've still got a few books from 2016 left! And what about all those books you abandoned reviewing even though you want to review? I still have their souls! And I will have yours!
<b>I'm not going to get out of this, aren't I? 😢</b>
<i>Beyond the Red</i> is one of the last books I read back in 2017 that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet, and here we are, a year later, with shenanigans but no review yet.
And when I want to write a review, I'm staring at a blank document in Google Drive for hours upon hours wondering what to say.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><b>Four Things About <i>Beyond the Red</i></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">Generally I write a list of either the good or bad (primarily just good. Bad I've been skipping or writing little paragraphs for), but my brain is crying on the forgetfulness of this book, so I'm going to go with generic little things you should be aware of before picking up the book.</div>
<h3><b>There are two perspectives and they are polar opposites</b></h3>
We have a half-blood who loses everything and becomes a slave, and then we have a queen who technically has everything. I thought it was really cool to see Jaes world from two different sides of the spectrum.
<h3><b>I don't think I'm a fan of the language</b></h3>
I don't mind made up languages in a book (within boundaries, of course, because my brain cannot wrap itself around overly complex words sometimes), but <em>Beyond the Reds</em> world language is very similar to ours yet different.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I know three different ways to break out of this kinduv brace, and everything inside me screams that I use one of them.
I wont feel bad, not for her, not after what she did, and yet I cant fight this fucken ridiculous need to fix this, to hold her until its okay.</blockquote>
Is it <i>meant </i>to be similar? I'm assuming so based on how humans are still around and the Sepharon are very similar to humans in <i>Beyond the Red</i>. <b>Either way, I'm confused.</b> Or I missed something. Who knows. <strong>I've been out of it lately. :/</strong>
<h3><b> </b><b>But the world building is super cool despite language</b></h3>
Jaes world building is well developed, and it's shown constantly throughout the book. And is it just me, or did anyone else think of this as Star Wars just a little? Am I just assuming Star Wars is going to be like this because if so, I'm going into the box of shame. (Lupe, help.)
Now that I look at the ARC I have, it's the blurbs. I blame the blurbs. Help me.
<h3><b>Thankfully, the names aren't complicated</b></h3>
Sometimes books go all out and the characters have strange names that are hard to pronounce, so my brain cries in terror and starts wailing. <i>Beyond the Red</i> has its strange names, but they're not complicated. They're an average of two syllables and my brain won't start tearing itself to shreds figuring out the right pronunciation. Is this right? wonders the reviewer, as she puzzles over all the possible ways to say the name.
Honestly, if you're looking for an adventure on a new planet that's a nod to Mars with not complicated names, <i>Beyond the Red</i> might be perfect for you. If you don't mind the language, that is.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/beyond-red-ava-jae-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I can be trusted with responsibilities again! the reviewer says as she slowly climbs out of the reviewing hiatus hole.
You're delusional, the hiatus whispers menacingly, just a voice from the dark depths. You've still got a few books from 2016 left! And what about all those books you abandoned reviewing even though you want to review? I still have their souls! And I will have yours!
<b>I'm not going to get out of this, aren't I? 😢</b>
<i>Beyond the Red</i> is one of the last books I read back in 2017 that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet, and here we are, a year later, with shenanigans but no review yet.
And when I want to write a review, I'm staring at a blank document in Google Drive for hours upon hours wondering what to say.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><b>Four Things About <i>Beyond the Red</i></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">Generally I write a list of either the good or bad (primarily just good. Bad I've been skipping or writing little paragraphs for), but my brain is crying on the forgetfulness of this book, so I'm going to go with generic little things you should be aware of before picking up the book.</div>
<h3><b>There are two perspectives and they are polar opposites</b></h3>
We have a half-blood who loses everything and becomes a slave, and then we have a queen who technically has everything. I thought it was really cool to see Jaes world from two different sides of the spectrum.
<h3><b>I don't think I'm a fan of the language</b></h3>
I don't mind made up languages in a book (within boundaries, of course, because my brain cannot wrap itself around overly complex words sometimes), but <em>Beyond the Reds</em> world language is very similar to ours yet different.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I know three different ways to break out of this kinduv brace, and everything inside me screams that I use one of them.
I wont feel bad, not for her, not after what she did, and yet I cant fight this fucken ridiculous need to fix this, to hold her until its okay.</blockquote>
Is it <i>meant </i>to be similar? I'm assuming so based on how humans are still around and the Sepharon are very similar to humans in <i>Beyond the Red</i>. <b>Either way, I'm confused.</b> Or I missed something. Who knows. <strong>I've been out of it lately. :/</strong>
<h3><b> </b><b>But the world building is super cool despite language</b></h3>
Jaes world building is well developed, and it's shown constantly throughout the book. And is it just me, or did anyone else think of this as Star Wars just a little? Am I just assuming Star Wars is going to be like this because if so, I'm going into the box of shame. (Lupe, help.)
Now that I look at the ARC I have, it's the blurbs. I blame the blurbs. Help me.
<h3><b>Thankfully, the names aren't complicated</b></h3>
Sometimes books go all out and the characters have strange names that are hard to pronounce, so my brain cries in terror and starts wailing. <i>Beyond the Red</i> has its strange names, but they're not complicated. They're an average of two syllables and my brain won't start tearing itself to shreds figuring out the right pronunciation. Is this right? wonders the reviewer, as she puzzles over all the possible ways to say the name.
Honestly, if you're looking for an adventure on a new planet that's a nod to Mars with not complicated names, <i>Beyond the Red</i> might be perfect for you. If you don't mind the language, that is.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/beyond-red-ava-jae-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Is the third time a charm for Mr. Butler's action thriller series?
Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service agent Mike Banning in the third entry of the "Fallen" series, picking up where London Has Fallen left off.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.