Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Rocketman recently did a great job of reminding us just how good Elton John songs are, making us want to dust off our vinyl/plastic/streaming service collection and reacquaint ourselves with his back catalogue all over again. Last year the Bohemian Rhapsody movie did a similar thing for the music of Queen and now it's the turn of The Beatles, with Yesterday. Written by Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle, Yesterday doesn't go down the musical/biopic route, instead taking classic Beatles songs and weaving them into a high concept romantic comedy.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Singapore Bling.
I’ve been catching up on films that I missed at the cinema during 2018. And this is one of the ones I most wanted to see but missed due to work commitments.
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This little film has big shoes to fill
Alexander Payne was clearly vying for Oscars attention when it came to penning the screenplay for Downsizing. And why not, he’s certainly got form in the awards department. A two-time Oscar winner with a further three nominations, his films have been bold and topical.
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Liam Neeson's special set of skills return
The Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars have received over 650 votes so far and it’s proving to be the closest run awards ever. Make sure you cast your vote for the best films and performances from 2017 before March 6th.
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Just what the doctor ordered: a charming and thoughtful summer comedy.
Romance and comedy work together beautifully on film: love is innately ridiculous after all! But mix in a dramatic element – particularly a serious medical emergency – to a Rom Com and you walk a dangerous line between on the one hand letting the drama overwhelm the comedy ( “Well! I don’t feel like laughing now!”) and on the other hand diverging into shockingly mawkish finger-down-the-throat sentimentality. Fortunately the new comedy – “The Big Sick” – walks that line to perfection.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
There are automatically problems with concluding films in a series, a definite set of things need to be achieved and that doesn't always mean the film can have the same impact as its predecessors. I don't know if this is quite where my struggles with the film came from but it probably didn't help.
I enjoy Star Wars but I wouldn't classify myself as a fan, I like the originals, I've really enjoyed the latest instalments, but I'd happily never watch the prequels again. Rewatching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi was a joy, I don't remember them being that good, so it was sad to get yet another conclusion this year that didn't leave me with good feelings.
We obviously get the same set of actors doing the usual thing, I wasn't particularly wowed by any of the performances. Adam Driver certainly came across better to me, partly because I finally saw a film of his this year where I felt like he could act, and also because he genuinely had a sound performance through the film.
What appears to be the main theme for our cast is that a lot of them get screwed over. Rose in particular, someone online did the maths, 1 minute and 16 seconds of screen time in a 2 hour and 22-minute film. Her first appearance is so dismissive that it was very clear we weren't going to be seeing her. I'd have felt much better if they hologrammed her from somewhere else in the galaxy being hero own hero and left it at that, or then brought her in at the last minute to Captain Marvel that shit. It felt like a fear of offending the trolls, which is a little redundant considering they were going to go off regardless about something.
Finn and Poe, the ultimate bromance. Every time they appeared onscreen there was the rom-com moment where they'd run into each other's arms and kiss... we were robbed each and every time. With news going around about LGBT representation in RoS we could hope though... but what we got was a token kiss from two extras that didn't feel like it was anything more than ticking the box. R2D2 and C3P0 had a better gay storyline than that kiss did.
Finn didn't exactly get a great life in Rise Of Skywalker, as I sit here thinking about his role the only bit I can recall off the top of my head is that he spent a lot of time trying to tell Rey something yet never managed it. Every time it happened I had an uncomfortable feeling and really didn't want it to be what I thought it was. There are other things that Finn did that I can remember, but for the main thing to be this completely irrelevant piece of story to be number one is a complete joke.
Trying to decipher what happened with the Leia footage has my mind-boggling. They used unused footage from the previous movies and shoe-horned it into the story depending on what they had and could make out of it. With all the technology we have I'm honestly surprised how bad it looked. There's always something slightly off about footage that's doctored like this, Leia didn't look like she was in the same colour palette as the rest of the film in several scenes, and you get back of the headshots to fill the interactions with Rey. I dislike that in most films because actual actor or not it always looks like it's something they've had to re-shoot without the original actor. There's also one scene where we see a young Leia and Luke training, Luke looks quite convincing but Leia's recreation is terrible. Being that there's no dialogue in this bit I'm not sure why they couldn't dig into the archives for something more suitable.
When it comes to effects in the rest of the film it's obviously the usual quality you'd expect, I did suffer a couple of times where scenes were very busy with movement and it set off my motion sickness, those bits might have been dubious but I'd honestly not be able to tell you!
Rise Of Skywalker might have been more aptly named Rise Of The Machines (to steal from another franchise). BB-8 is always adorable, and D-0 was a fun little addition. C3P0 really had some great airtime though, some moments made me laugh, some made me cry, along with Kylo he probably faired the best overall.
As the beginning of the film started so slowly I was concerned about what was in store. Trundling along with nothing seemingly happening I was bored and desperate for something to perk up the pace. Those moments did happen, but with no real flow. It was very much start and stop for a lot of the time, no build-up to the action, no real anticipation so the satisfaction of the scenes were very short-lived.
This year has been the culmination to a lot of movie history and yet again I'm not a fan of it. I don't think that Rise Of Skywalker lived up to The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, even having watched them all in the same week I wasn't engaged by the final instalment because of the slow beginning.
I can forgive films a lot of things if I enjoy them but the list here was far too extensive to be able to do that. With pacing problems, the box-ticking, and so many characters being let down I've finally come down off the fence and sadly I'm on the disappointed side of it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-movie-review.html
I enjoy Star Wars but I wouldn't classify myself as a fan, I like the originals, I've really enjoyed the latest instalments, but I'd happily never watch the prequels again. Rewatching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi was a joy, I don't remember them being that good, so it was sad to get yet another conclusion this year that didn't leave me with good feelings.
We obviously get the same set of actors doing the usual thing, I wasn't particularly wowed by any of the performances. Adam Driver certainly came across better to me, partly because I finally saw a film of his this year where I felt like he could act, and also because he genuinely had a sound performance through the film.
What appears to be the main theme for our cast is that a lot of them get screwed over. Rose in particular, someone online did the maths, 1 minute and 16 seconds of screen time in a 2 hour and 22-minute film. Her first appearance is so dismissive that it was very clear we weren't going to be seeing her. I'd have felt much better if they hologrammed her from somewhere else in the galaxy being hero own hero and left it at that, or then brought her in at the last minute to Captain Marvel that shit. It felt like a fear of offending the trolls, which is a little redundant considering they were going to go off regardless about something.
Finn and Poe, the ultimate bromance. Every time they appeared onscreen there was the rom-com moment where they'd run into each other's arms and kiss... we were robbed each and every time. With news going around about LGBT representation in RoS we could hope though... but what we got was a token kiss from two extras that didn't feel like it was anything more than ticking the box. R2D2 and C3P0 had a better gay storyline than that kiss did.
Finn didn't exactly get a great life in Rise Of Skywalker, as I sit here thinking about his role the only bit I can recall off the top of my head is that he spent a lot of time trying to tell Rey something yet never managed it. Every time it happened I had an uncomfortable feeling and really didn't want it to be what I thought it was. There are other things that Finn did that I can remember, but for the main thing to be this completely irrelevant piece of story to be number one is a complete joke.
Trying to decipher what happened with the Leia footage has my mind-boggling. They used unused footage from the previous movies and shoe-horned it into the story depending on what they had and could make out of it. With all the technology we have I'm honestly surprised how bad it looked. There's always something slightly off about footage that's doctored like this, Leia didn't look like she was in the same colour palette as the rest of the film in several scenes, and you get back of the headshots to fill the interactions with Rey. I dislike that in most films because actual actor or not it always looks like it's something they've had to re-shoot without the original actor. There's also one scene where we see a young Leia and Luke training, Luke looks quite convincing but Leia's recreation is terrible. Being that there's no dialogue in this bit I'm not sure why they couldn't dig into the archives for something more suitable.
When it comes to effects in the rest of the film it's obviously the usual quality you'd expect, I did suffer a couple of times where scenes were very busy with movement and it set off my motion sickness, those bits might have been dubious but I'd honestly not be able to tell you!
Rise Of Skywalker might have been more aptly named Rise Of The Machines (to steal from another franchise). BB-8 is always adorable, and D-0 was a fun little addition. C3P0 really had some great airtime though, some moments made me laugh, some made me cry, along with Kylo he probably faired the best overall.
As the beginning of the film started so slowly I was concerned about what was in store. Trundling along with nothing seemingly happening I was bored and desperate for something to perk up the pace. Those moments did happen, but with no real flow. It was very much start and stop for a lot of the time, no build-up to the action, no real anticipation so the satisfaction of the scenes were very short-lived.
This year has been the culmination to a lot of movie history and yet again I'm not a fan of it. I don't think that Rise Of Skywalker lived up to The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, even having watched them all in the same week I wasn't engaged by the final instalment because of the slow beginning.
I can forgive films a lot of things if I enjoy them but the list here was far too extensive to be able to do that. With pacing problems, the box-ticking, and so many characters being let down I've finally come down off the fence and sadly I'm on the disappointed side of it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-movie-review.html