Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Long Mars in Books
Nov 20, 2019
The third book in the Long Earth series by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter very much carries on with 'more of the same' as the previous books. Therefore if you haven't liked the series up until now, you probably won't like this installment.
The usual characters are here. Lobsang is less in evidence than previously, despite driving what is the core of the book. Joshua is also a little sidelined as his story is tied closely to that of Lobsang. The bulk of the actual pages are concerned with Sally Lindsay and Maggie Kaufmann as they set off on their own voyages of discovery on the seemingly infinite copies of Earth and - not too much of a spoiler since it's in the title - Mars.
Whereas the previous books have essentially had one thread of a story around which the characters revolve towards some sort of end. This book seems more as if the authors couldn't really decide what they wanted to write about.
Should they write about more versions of the Long Earth, more fantastic worlds and lifeforms? Or perhaps investigate what has really been happening at Happy Landings, the seemingly too perfect town which existed long before Step Day? Or perhaps you are Stephen Baxter and can't resist going to Mars and showing many stepwise possibilities for that planet?
Rather than focus on one of these, all three are covered.
Maggie Kaufmann takes a brand new Twain far beyond the current limits of exploration into completely uncharted - and very strange - worlds. She must deal with the crew during their long trip, a surprise guest and aims to find out what happened to a previous expedition that vanished. Once again Pratchett and Baxter dig up some potentially different outcomes for both life on Earth and the planet itself, although many of the worlds are skimmed over and this part does get a little repetitive - another world, another odd ecology. This thread did feel a little like filler, there for those who want to see what might happen at the extremes of the Long Earth, although events do tie in with Lobsang's story.
Lobsang (the omnipresent super computer) has become concerned with matters of existence and what might come after. In particular is the human race evolving? He asks Joshua to help out and discover if there is any evidence for a breed of super human evolving as Lobsang theorises there must be. It seemed to me this is the real story of the book, a query on what would happen if a vastly more intelligent form of humanity evolved as a step change rather than a gradual one. What would they do? Would the rest of humanity accept them or feel threatened by them? The thread is short - barely more than an essay - and takes a good while to work through but provides the ultimate ending to the book.
Meanwhile, Sally Lindsay finds herself at The Gap, preparing to visit Mars, part of some mysterious quest for 'something' by her father. Here Baxter's history of writing Mars colonisation stories (they even get a mention) comes to the fore as the possibilities of a Long Mars are explored. In the real world Mars is cold, arid and inhospitable but there may be the odd chance for life to have developed. What would this be like? Again we have many different worlds although these are skipped through a little better than the Maggie Kaufmann Long Earth voyage and seem a little less repetitive - or where there is repetition it is more interesting than mundane.
Overall this is a good read in the series, probably a little better than The Long War but again lacking the coherence and sheer enthusiasm of The Long Earth (perhaps inevitably). As a work of science fiction it works well - the broad brush 'imaginary worlds' of the Long Earth and the Long Mars juxtaposed by the more existential investigation into human evolution.
Would I read a fourth installment? Undoubtedly, there are stories yet to be told. Would I recommend this book? Only if the recommendee had enjoyed the previous two books.
The usual characters are here. Lobsang is less in evidence than previously, despite driving what is the core of the book. Joshua is also a little sidelined as his story is tied closely to that of Lobsang. The bulk of the actual pages are concerned with Sally Lindsay and Maggie Kaufmann as they set off on their own voyages of discovery on the seemingly infinite copies of Earth and - not too much of a spoiler since it's in the title - Mars.
Whereas the previous books have essentially had one thread of a story around which the characters revolve towards some sort of end. This book seems more as if the authors couldn't really decide what they wanted to write about.
Should they write about more versions of the Long Earth, more fantastic worlds and lifeforms? Or perhaps investigate what has really been happening at Happy Landings, the seemingly too perfect town which existed long before Step Day? Or perhaps you are Stephen Baxter and can't resist going to Mars and showing many stepwise possibilities for that planet?
Rather than focus on one of these, all three are covered.
Maggie Kaufmann takes a brand new Twain far beyond the current limits of exploration into completely uncharted - and very strange - worlds. She must deal with the crew during their long trip, a surprise guest and aims to find out what happened to a previous expedition that vanished. Once again Pratchett and Baxter dig up some potentially different outcomes for both life on Earth and the planet itself, although many of the worlds are skimmed over and this part does get a little repetitive - another world, another odd ecology. This thread did feel a little like filler, there for those who want to see what might happen at the extremes of the Long Earth, although events do tie in with Lobsang's story.
Lobsang (the omnipresent super computer) has become concerned with matters of existence and what might come after. In particular is the human race evolving? He asks Joshua to help out and discover if there is any evidence for a breed of super human evolving as Lobsang theorises there must be. It seemed to me this is the real story of the book, a query on what would happen if a vastly more intelligent form of humanity evolved as a step change rather than a gradual one. What would they do? Would the rest of humanity accept them or feel threatened by them? The thread is short - barely more than an essay - and takes a good while to work through but provides the ultimate ending to the book.
Meanwhile, Sally Lindsay finds herself at The Gap, preparing to visit Mars, part of some mysterious quest for 'something' by her father. Here Baxter's history of writing Mars colonisation stories (they even get a mention) comes to the fore as the possibilities of a Long Mars are explored. In the real world Mars is cold, arid and inhospitable but there may be the odd chance for life to have developed. What would this be like? Again we have many different worlds although these are skipped through a little better than the Maggie Kaufmann Long Earth voyage and seem a little less repetitive - or where there is repetition it is more interesting than mundane.
Overall this is a good read in the series, probably a little better than The Long War but again lacking the coherence and sheer enthusiasm of The Long Earth (perhaps inevitably). As a work of science fiction it works well - the broad brush 'imaginary worlds' of the Long Earth and the Long Mars juxtaposed by the more existential investigation into human evolution.
Would I read a fourth installment? Undoubtedly, there are stories yet to be told. Would I recommend this book? Only if the recommendee had enjoyed the previous two books.
My Pet House Decorating Game.s: Animal Home Design
Lifestyle and Games
App
▶▶▶ Decorate your house for animals and play with your favorite “virtual pets”. ▶▶▶...
Nail Art Beauty Makeover Salon: Fashion Manicure Designs and Decoration Ideas for Girls
Lifestyle and Games
App
*** Create fabulous princess gel nails in the top trending virtual nail salon! *** Perform...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
The Escape Manifesto: Quit Your Corporate Job - Do Something Different!
Book
Rob, Dom and Mikey were fed up with the corporate treadmill. When they decided to change careers,...
Alien Slave Masters: Part One
5.7
Rate It
Book
The Captain's Pet When a distant planet’s ownership is in dispute, conquering aliens turn...
Science Fiction Erotica MM Dark
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Sep 27, 2017
C is for Candy
Contains spoilers, click to show
And yes, I certainly mean eye candy. Johnny Depp is gorgeous despite the makeup artists’ attempts to make him seem pale and awkward. My brain isn’t working properly due to lack of sleep so I’ll just go ahead and warn you that this is more a regurgitation than a review. Read at your own risk, because I even give the entire ending of the movie away…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Magic in the Wind (Drake Sisters, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
The first few chapters of MItW started off well enough, the author captured the coastal town atmosphere perfectly, however, after that it got a little, okay at times a lot, cheesy and eye-roll-inducing. Romances don't have to be that sticky-sweet. What was different and interesting is that the narration was mainly told through the male lead instead of the female; there's not too much of that in romances. The only downfall to the story being told this way was Damon waxing poetic about Sarah the Mysterious, Sarah the Magical, Sarah the Magnificent, Sarah, She Who Walks on Water - seriously, what a Mary-Sue. I'm surprised people didn't address her as Saint Sarah. Everyone in town follows her "advice" (basically she tells them what to do in a roundabout way and they listen), seeks her out to magically fix all their problems, act like she's a goddess, combined, this all made it ten times worse. They just follow her like brainless zombies and never get upset at her poking her nose in their business (not that they all don't do the same in everybody else's). Even though all of that was nauseating, she wasn't the worst Mary-Sue I've run across (Why o' why are there so many of them? Is there a writer's manual on how to write a paragon so that everything they touch, everywhere they go, everyone they meet, they're held up as a supreme being? I wish I was perfect too. :P) and she had magic, so that makes it all the more unfair. Although, who is Sarah besides the saint of this small coastal town? I have no clue, she was never made real, I actually envisioned a golden aura around her like she's some sort of angelic being or something, which is at total odds with her tough defender super hero side. Some girls have all the luck. She has magic, she's as kind as can be, she's perfect in every way (except she's not conventionally beautiful or something, the description was kind of unclear), so of course everyone loves her, she's peaceful and she gets to kick a** like she's Buffy? No freaking way. Where can I sign up?
Another annoyance was "painfully shy" Hannah, one of Sarah's six sisters. Hannah is apparently a model who travels the world, is on magazines, goes on talk shows, etc., even though she is painfully shy. Hey, I can believe someone famous has trouble like that, my problem comes from her "condition" being described as "painfully shy" all the time. It is mentioned in that exact same way, it's never really shy, very shy, extremely shy, or even just plain old shy, no it has to be "painfully shy." In truth, it was only said three times (that I noticed), but in a story that is only around ninety pages, it really sticks out, especially since it was awkwardly brought into the plot. I have a hard time believing this is only shyness, try social phobia or at the very least, some anxiety disorder. Why hasn't she had psychological care? The only remedies mentioned are magical spells and whatnot. While I'm on the subject of Hannah, of whom I know more about personality-wise than Sarah, I might as well mention the jeering and taunting between Jona, the town sheriff, and herself. These interactions are so over-the-top and obvious; we all know where this is going to lead in a future book. And not one of the sisters or Damon notices what is right in front of them. How can they be so imperceptive? What are they, seven? Although I have to admit I'd hate to be called "Baby" or "Barbie" doll too, but then again, I don't look like a Victoria's Secret model, Hannah does.
As for the plot, it was barely there, more time was spent on introducing the sisters, their legacy, characters that went nowhere, and having Sarah sit on a pedestal. Damon would have been more interesting if this had been made into a full-length book - I like the idea of a scientist being confronted with magic - but there just wasn't enough there for a cohesive story. I usually don't write much about short stories but had a lot to say about this one. Obviously. I'm interested in the sisters' stories, I try not to judge authors solely based on a short story, so I will check them out, especially Hannah's. As someone who's been "painfully shy" (couldn't resist) her whole life, my interest has been piqued to see how the author develops Hannah and her shyness in that installment of the series.
I was thinking of giving this an average rating but after writing my review and thinking back on the story, it's just not that good.
2/5 stars
Another annoyance was "painfully shy" Hannah, one of Sarah's six sisters. Hannah is apparently a model who travels the world, is on magazines, goes on talk shows, etc., even though she is painfully shy. Hey, I can believe someone famous has trouble like that, my problem comes from her "condition" being described as "painfully shy" all the time. It is mentioned in that exact same way, it's never really shy, very shy, extremely shy, or even just plain old shy, no it has to be "painfully shy." In truth, it was only said three times (that I noticed), but in a story that is only around ninety pages, it really sticks out, especially since it was awkwardly brought into the plot. I have a hard time believing this is only shyness, try social phobia or at the very least, some anxiety disorder. Why hasn't she had psychological care? The only remedies mentioned are magical spells and whatnot. While I'm on the subject of Hannah, of whom I know more about personality-wise than Sarah, I might as well mention the jeering and taunting between Jona, the town sheriff, and herself. These interactions are so over-the-top and obvious; we all know where this is going to lead in a future book. And not one of the sisters or Damon notices what is right in front of them. How can they be so imperceptive? What are they, seven? Although I have to admit I'd hate to be called "Baby" or "Barbie" doll too, but then again, I don't look like a Victoria's Secret model, Hannah does.
As for the plot, it was barely there, more time was spent on introducing the sisters, their legacy, characters that went nowhere, and having Sarah sit on a pedestal. Damon would have been more interesting if this had been made into a full-length book - I like the idea of a scientist being confronted with magic - but there just wasn't enough there for a cohesive story. I usually don't write much about short stories but had a lot to say about this one. Obviously. I'm interested in the sisters' stories, I try not to judge authors solely based on a short story, so I will check them out, especially Hannah's. As someone who's been "painfully shy" (couldn't resist) her whole life, my interest has been piqued to see how the author develops Hannah and her shyness in that installment of the series.
I was thinking of giving this an average rating but after writing my review and thinking back on the story, it's just not that good.
2/5 stars