Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Greed (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
On the Greek island of Mykonos, preparations are well underway for the lavish Gladiator themed 60th birthday party of multi-millionaire and 'king of the high-street', Sir Richard 'Greedy' McCreadie (Steve Coogan). A journalist turned biographer (David Mitchell) is on hand to document McCreadie's life story and some of his interviews with various acquaintances and family members combine with present day events to form a mockumentary style movie which gives us a closer look at how he went from ruthless young schoolboy to ruthless self-made millionaire.
It's 5 days until the party. Construction on a huge wooden Colosseum is progressing slowly, and a nearby caged lion is to be involved in a series of gladiator themed games for the event. Although, as McCreadies moody teenage son (Asa Butterworth) snarkily points out, it was actually tigers that featured in the movie Gladiator and not lions. Discussions are also taking place as to where the firework display will be and where Fatboy Slim and Coldplay will be performing, overseen by McCreadie himself, all fake tan and bright white teeth. His first wife (Isla Fisher) arrives with her new partner and everyone is under pressure to be ready in time.
We're taken right back to the beginning and Richards public school years. A rather unpleasant young Richard (Jamie Blackley) is back-chatting his teachers and playing cards with the other students for money. When his mother (Shirley Henderson) is called into the school, there is a heated exchange in the headmasters office and Richard ends up leaving the school. We then follow him out into the big wide world, wheeling and dealing in the fashion business, confident and persistent until he has managed to land himself a small shop and enough stock to start undercutting some of his nearby rivals. It's not long until Richard is heading out to Sri Lanka, meeting up with sweatshop managers in order to play them off against each other for the lowest possible price in order to secure himself a huge profit. As Richard grows up into the version played by Coogan, there continues to be a steady stream of different clothing shops, big ideas, dodgy deals and plenty of mishaps for him to tackle in what are some of the films funnier scenes.
Greed takes a real scatter-gun approach to plots and scenes, which for the most part don't really work. There is a completely pointless and dull subplot involving a reality TV show that's being filmed on and around the beach, with another concerning a group of Syrian refugees who have the cheek to be camped out on the beach where the party is due to take place. We zip back and forth in time, occasionally dipping into a hearing regarding Sir Richard's tax avoidance antics over the years and there's never really enough time, or enough of a decent script, to make any of it very interesting or funny. The character of McCreadie, who is clearly loosely based on Topshop CEO Philip Green, is basically just a variation of Alan Partridge, slightly different voice, some extra swearing and anger thrown in, only less funny. The movie even features Tim "Sidekick Simon" Key from the Partridge shows as an exasperated employee, trying to keep the building of the Colosseum on track with a diminishing workforce. There are plenty of celebrity cameos shoehorned in too and the whole thing is just very hit and miss. But mostly miss.
Greed concludes by showing us some pretty sobering facts and figures. We're informed that the 26 richest men in the world hold more wealth than that of the 3.6 billion poorest combined. We learn just how little the women in countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh earn in return for their long days putting together high street clothes, while the biggest names in retail turnover millions in profits each year. And we hear about the plight of the Syrian refugees trying to make their way to Greece. The greed and injustice of it all really hits home, and it does so far more effectively here than during the the rest of the movie.
It's 5 days until the party. Construction on a huge wooden Colosseum is progressing slowly, and a nearby caged lion is to be involved in a series of gladiator themed games for the event. Although, as McCreadies moody teenage son (Asa Butterworth) snarkily points out, it was actually tigers that featured in the movie Gladiator and not lions. Discussions are also taking place as to where the firework display will be and where Fatboy Slim and Coldplay will be performing, overseen by McCreadie himself, all fake tan and bright white teeth. His first wife (Isla Fisher) arrives with her new partner and everyone is under pressure to be ready in time.
We're taken right back to the beginning and Richards public school years. A rather unpleasant young Richard (Jamie Blackley) is back-chatting his teachers and playing cards with the other students for money. When his mother (Shirley Henderson) is called into the school, there is a heated exchange in the headmasters office and Richard ends up leaving the school. We then follow him out into the big wide world, wheeling and dealing in the fashion business, confident and persistent until he has managed to land himself a small shop and enough stock to start undercutting some of his nearby rivals. It's not long until Richard is heading out to Sri Lanka, meeting up with sweatshop managers in order to play them off against each other for the lowest possible price in order to secure himself a huge profit. As Richard grows up into the version played by Coogan, there continues to be a steady stream of different clothing shops, big ideas, dodgy deals and plenty of mishaps for him to tackle in what are some of the films funnier scenes.
Greed takes a real scatter-gun approach to plots and scenes, which for the most part don't really work. There is a completely pointless and dull subplot involving a reality TV show that's being filmed on and around the beach, with another concerning a group of Syrian refugees who have the cheek to be camped out on the beach where the party is due to take place. We zip back and forth in time, occasionally dipping into a hearing regarding Sir Richard's tax avoidance antics over the years and there's never really enough time, or enough of a decent script, to make any of it very interesting or funny. The character of McCreadie, who is clearly loosely based on Topshop CEO Philip Green, is basically just a variation of Alan Partridge, slightly different voice, some extra swearing and anger thrown in, only less funny. The movie even features Tim "Sidekick Simon" Key from the Partridge shows as an exasperated employee, trying to keep the building of the Colosseum on track with a diminishing workforce. There are plenty of celebrity cameos shoehorned in too and the whole thing is just very hit and miss. But mostly miss.
Greed concludes by showing us some pretty sobering facts and figures. We're informed that the 26 richest men in the world hold more wealth than that of the 3.6 billion poorest combined. We learn just how little the women in countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh earn in return for their long days putting together high street clothes, while the biggest names in retail turnover millions in profits each year. And we hear about the plight of the Syrian refugees trying to make their way to Greece. The greed and injustice of it all really hits home, and it does so far more effectively here than during the the rest of the movie.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Guide To Second Date Sex (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
Talk about burying the lead. Marie Claire offered its readers the chance to see A Guide To Second Date Sex free online for Valentine's Day, after seeing the cute little into from the lead actors I knew I had to give it a try.
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wolfwalkers (2020) in Movies
Oct 11, 2020
Coming into this I wasn't sure what to expect, an animated Apple TV film... hmm.
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
BaM Video Delay for Coaching and Personal Training
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Featured in the TOP 10 SPORTS apps in USA First real video delay - continuously showing what just...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchillâs government has sent Lord Grantham â â sorry â Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, âThe Monuments Menâ) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnahâs victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: âWorthy but dullâ was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldnât have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (âBend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (âThe X Filesâ) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (âHarry Potterâ) as General Ismay (Mountbattenâs chief of staff); Simon Callow (âFour Weddings and a Funeralâ) as Radcliffe (the drawer of âthe new mapâ); and Om Puri (âThe Hundred Foot Journeyâ) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbattenâs daughter is Lily Travers (âKingsman: The Secret Serviceâ): Virginia McKennaâs granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonnevilleâs Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Andersonâs (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, Iâm sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbattenâs man-servant. And no, that isnât a euphemismâŠ. Iâm talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for âEast is Eastâ) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (âBend it like Beckhamâ), Moira Buffini (âTamara Dreweâ) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the âLionâ-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a âreal-life photographâ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenboroughâs âGandhiâ. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But thatâs just my viewâŠ.. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said âHonest disagreement is often a good sign of progressâ.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnahâs victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: âWorthy but dullâ was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldnât have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (âBend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (âThe X Filesâ) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (âHarry Potterâ) as General Ismay (Mountbattenâs chief of staff); Simon Callow (âFour Weddings and a Funeralâ) as Radcliffe (the drawer of âthe new mapâ); and Om Puri (âThe Hundred Foot Journeyâ) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbattenâs daughter is Lily Travers (âKingsman: The Secret Serviceâ): Virginia McKennaâs granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonnevilleâs Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Andersonâs (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, Iâm sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbattenâs man-servant. And no, that isnât a euphemismâŠ. Iâm talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for âEast is Eastâ) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (âBend it like Beckhamâ), Moira Buffini (âTamara Dreweâ) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the âLionâ-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a âreal-life photographâ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenboroughâs âGandhiâ. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But thatâs just my viewâŠ.. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said âHonest disagreement is often a good sign of progressâ.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
âJackieâ tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, âBlack Swanâ) to a âTimeâ journalist (Billy Crudup, âWatchmenâ, âSpotlightâ).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a âbaby girlâ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which â although subject to emotional outburst and grief â is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackieâs eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the Presidentâs funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for âLa La Landâ â as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category â and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win itâŠ. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (âThe Magnificent Sevenâ) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackieâs priest is John Hurt (âAlienâ, âDr Whoâ) and, as Jackieâs close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (âWithnail and Iâ, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush â I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo LarraĂn (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackieâs mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency â âWill he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?â rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by StĂ©phane Fontaine, âRust and Boneâ) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackieâs âCamelotâ to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you donât feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim â in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for âAllegiantâ and âThe Maze Runnerâ â is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: âAnd the Oscar goes to⊠Natalie Portmanâ.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackieâs point-of-viewâŠ. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in âFamily Guyâ (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a âbaby girlâ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which â although subject to emotional outburst and grief â is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackieâs eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the Presidentâs funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for âLa La Landâ â as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category â and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win itâŠ. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (âThe Magnificent Sevenâ) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackieâs priest is John Hurt (âAlienâ, âDr Whoâ) and, as Jackieâs close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (âWithnail and Iâ, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush â I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo LarraĂn (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackieâs mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency â âWill he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?â rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by StĂ©phane Fontaine, âRust and Boneâ) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackieâs âCamelotâ to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you donât feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim â in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for âAllegiantâ and âThe Maze Runnerâ â is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: âAnd the Oscar goes to⊠Natalie Portmanâ.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackieâs point-of-viewâŠ. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in âFamily Guyâ (as shown here).
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) created a post
Apr 27, 2020
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! Iâve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being âA Monster Callsâ back in January).
Itâs really difficult to categorise âColossalâ â imdb classes it as a âComedy, Action, Dramaâ. Comedy? Yes, but itâs a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really⊠if you go to this expecting âGodzilla 2â or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (âLes Miserablesâ) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, âBeauty and the Beastâ) in his New York apartment. When Timâs patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from âA Monster Callsâ, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kidâs playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being âlikeâ others, but this oneâs really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in âE.T.â (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the filmâs fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to âJumanjiâ. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as âBeing John Malkovichâ.
The film stays on âWhimsical Streetâ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into âDark Avenueâ (and for âdarkâ read âextremely black and sinisterâ). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloriaâs growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant âoomphâ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like âWeâre the Millersâ and âHorrible Bossesâ) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The filmâs not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (âWhiplashâ, âBridge of Spiesâ), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling âDo Something you wimpâ to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so âout thereâ that the details become irrelevant, and â like âGuardians of the Galaxy Vol 2â â the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like âA Monster Callsâ the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume itâs possibly a âmonster movieâ or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality itâs neither of these. It wonât be to everyoneâs tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Itâs really difficult to categorise âColossalâ â imdb classes it as a âComedy, Action, Dramaâ. Comedy? Yes, but itâs a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really⊠if you go to this expecting âGodzilla 2â or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (âLes Miserablesâ) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, âBeauty and the Beastâ) in his New York apartment. When Timâs patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from âA Monster Callsâ, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kidâs playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being âlikeâ others, but this oneâs really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in âE.T.â (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the filmâs fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to âJumanjiâ. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as âBeing John Malkovichâ.
The film stays on âWhimsical Streetâ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into âDark Avenueâ (and for âdarkâ read âextremely black and sinisterâ). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloriaâs growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant âoomphâ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like âWeâre the Millersâ and âHorrible Bossesâ) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The filmâs not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (âWhiplashâ, âBridge of Spiesâ), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling âDo Something you wimpâ to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so âout thereâ that the details become irrelevant, and â like âGuardians of the Galaxy Vol 2â â the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like âA Monster Callsâ the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume itâs possibly a âmonster movieâ or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality itâs neither of these. It wonât be to everyoneâs tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Mandalorian in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Being a child of Star Wars, born in â73, whose first memory of a cinema was A New Hope in â77, of course the entire franchise is still close to my heart. I am no superfan, however. I do not need to remember every name of every character, or know the obscure names of planets to enjoy it. I remember that deeply competitive nature back in the playground â how important it was to prove Star Wars was yours by knowing more than any other kid! Fortunately I managed to let that go shortly after The Return of the Jedi. Ok, maybe 1995.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of âthe canonical Star Warsâ universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geekâs wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isnât crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly â the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isnât actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in â Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I canât imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, letâs face it⊠The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you havenât finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. Itâll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isnât all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and canât bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisleyâs cantina as real without hesitation. It doesnât have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is â for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesnât hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. Itâs as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look itâs Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we canât fail⊠plus we have The Child and Boba Fettâs (yes, I know) armour, we canât fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But donât worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so weâre all good! Iâm sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) canât believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, letâs just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3âŠ? I wonder where they will take that nowâŠ? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of âthe canonical Star Warsâ universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geekâs wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isnât crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly â the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isnât actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in â Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I canât imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, letâs face it⊠The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you havenât finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. Itâll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isnât all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and canât bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisleyâs cantina as real without hesitation. It doesnât have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is â for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesnât hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. Itâs as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look itâs Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we canât fail⊠plus we have The Child and Boba Fettâs (yes, I know) armour, we canât fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But donât worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so weâre all good! Iâm sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) canât believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, letâs just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3âŠ? I wonder where they will take that nowâŠ? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Sunshine Sisters in Books
Jan 21, 2018
Good beach read
Ronni Sunshine has summoned her daughters home. The aging actress is ill, and she wants her daughters by her side. This, however, will be easier said than done, as her three children--Nell, Meredith, and Lizzy--are estranged, both from each other and their mother: the result of a traumatic childhood. Even Ronni will now readily admit she focused on her acting career and beauty rather than her daughters. Her constant belittlement and pressure on the girls made them turn on each other as well. Nell lives the closest to her mother, on a nearby farm, and her son River is in grad school. Middle child Meredith spent her childhood struggling with her weight, thanks to endless biting comments from Ronni; she fled to England and is now engaged. Youngest Lizzie escaped most of her mother's wrath and appears to be the "golden child": she's a successful chef and celebrity, with a TV show and line of related products, but her marriage and personal life aren't all that they seem. Frustrated by their mother's long history of hypochondria, the girls reluctantly return home, excepting to find her fine. However, it seems this time Ronni may be telling the truth: she's really sick. Can the Sunshine sisters set aside their differences? And can they ever forgive their mother?
In some ways, I'm not sure why I keep giving Jane Green books a chance. I liked Summer Secrets well-enough, but was really let down by Saving Grace and Falling. I was intrigued that in her acknowledgements, Green mentions that this is the first book in while where she's felt like herself. I went in hoping that this was true, but still wary, and truthfully, this wariness may have clouded some of my thoughts and feelings about the book.
Overall, this is a summery read, though it does deal with some serious subject matter. If you're looking for a book that will surprise you, this isn't it. Most of these plot points I saw coming from a few miles away; I predicted the majority of the twists and turns before they happened. And, truly, I think the ending is a foregone conclusion. Green relies a bit to heavily on some tropes, as well. Serious older sister? Check. Insecure middle sister? Check. Flighty younger sister? She's here, too, don't worry.
Still, this was a fun book--despite the dark topic at its core--and I found myself compelled to read through the second half in nearly one sitting. Despite some of the transparency of the characters, I was oddly invested in their lives. The novel starts out with a brief glimpse of Ronni summoning her daughters home, then goes back in the past, allowing us to learn about the Sunshine family via various snippets from the sisters at different points in time. In this way, we sort of catch up with the family fast-forward style--it's like a cheat sheet of sorts. It also allows us to get to know each sister a bit better and explore their relationship with their mother (and other sisters). It's easy to see how much influence Ronni had on their lives and how she shaped them into the women they are today.
The girls can certainly be frustrating at times. Poor, needy Meredith drove me nearly mad, with her insecurities and inability to stand up for herself. There's also a point in the book where Meredith magically cleans up after a party (everything is fixed) and later loses a large amount of weight (everything is fixed, again!). I would have liked to have seen a little more plot realism. It was also hard to see how anyone could be quite as big of a doormat as Meredith, even with her mother's influence. And, truly, Ronni is pretty bad. It's an interesting technique--learning how terrible of a mother she is after we're told in the beginning of the novel that she's sick. But, in this way, we're allowed to see how the sisters were alienated by their poor upbringing and how everyone has reached the point we are at today.
Eventually, we reach the present day, with the girls learning about their mother's illness and coming to grips with reality. And, Ronni, of course, must grapple with the kind of mother she was to her children. She's a surprisingly compelling character considering how awful she was to her children, so that's a testament to Green's characterization. To me, the novel picked up a bit more in the present day time period. There were still some silly, unbelievable moments, but I truly did find myself invested in Meredith, Nell, and Lizzy (and Ronni).
The book does wrap things up too easily, as I stated. It's often quite trite and cliche, so you have to go in prepared. Think Lifetime movie, wrapped up in a bow. Still, it's fun at times and certainly a quick read. Well-suited for the beach or a vacation.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!).
In some ways, I'm not sure why I keep giving Jane Green books a chance. I liked Summer Secrets well-enough, but was really let down by Saving Grace and Falling. I was intrigued that in her acknowledgements, Green mentions that this is the first book in while where she's felt like herself. I went in hoping that this was true, but still wary, and truthfully, this wariness may have clouded some of my thoughts and feelings about the book.
Overall, this is a summery read, though it does deal with some serious subject matter. If you're looking for a book that will surprise you, this isn't it. Most of these plot points I saw coming from a few miles away; I predicted the majority of the twists and turns before they happened. And, truly, I think the ending is a foregone conclusion. Green relies a bit to heavily on some tropes, as well. Serious older sister? Check. Insecure middle sister? Check. Flighty younger sister? She's here, too, don't worry.
Still, this was a fun book--despite the dark topic at its core--and I found myself compelled to read through the second half in nearly one sitting. Despite some of the transparency of the characters, I was oddly invested in their lives. The novel starts out with a brief glimpse of Ronni summoning her daughters home, then goes back in the past, allowing us to learn about the Sunshine family via various snippets from the sisters at different points in time. In this way, we sort of catch up with the family fast-forward style--it's like a cheat sheet of sorts. It also allows us to get to know each sister a bit better and explore their relationship with their mother (and other sisters). It's easy to see how much influence Ronni had on their lives and how she shaped them into the women they are today.
The girls can certainly be frustrating at times. Poor, needy Meredith drove me nearly mad, with her insecurities and inability to stand up for herself. There's also a point in the book where Meredith magically cleans up after a party (everything is fixed) and later loses a large amount of weight (everything is fixed, again!). I would have liked to have seen a little more plot realism. It was also hard to see how anyone could be quite as big of a doormat as Meredith, even with her mother's influence. And, truly, Ronni is pretty bad. It's an interesting technique--learning how terrible of a mother she is after we're told in the beginning of the novel that she's sick. But, in this way, we're allowed to see how the sisters were alienated by their poor upbringing and how everyone has reached the point we are at today.
Eventually, we reach the present day, with the girls learning about their mother's illness and coming to grips with reality. And, Ronni, of course, must grapple with the kind of mother she was to her children. She's a surprisingly compelling character considering how awful she was to her children, so that's a testament to Green's characterization. To me, the novel picked up a bit more in the present day time period. There were still some silly, unbelievable moments, but I truly did find myself invested in Meredith, Nell, and Lizzy (and Ronni).
The book does wrap things up too easily, as I stated. It's often quite trite and cliche, so you have to go in prepared. Think Lifetime movie, wrapped up in a bow. Still, it's fun at times and certainly a quick read. Well-suited for the beach or a vacation.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!).