Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Tusk (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
To legions of his many fans, writer, director, producer, and podcaster Kevin Smith is a man fanboys find easy to root for. His films have become pop-culture gold to comic book, science fiction, and general geekdom fans the world over. Smith has built a career on independent films with characters that are as real as they are raw and raunchy. The crude nature of his jokes often put him in a “love them or hate them” category for many critics as it is definitely not a style that is for the masses. That being said, the films are witty, honest, and most times relatable, no matter how bad the situations and the characters become. Recently, Smith took a detour to the darker side with his film “Red State” that looked at a group of kids who became the victims of a fanatical cult leader and his followers.
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The little mermaid (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
(By my wife Genevieve)I must admit that I may be biased about this movie, being a huge fan of all things Disney. However, the popular and beloved original The Little Mermaid was released in November 1989, about 6 months before I graduated high school. Not really the age to be that interested in an animated movie about a mermaid who trades her voice away to be able to live where the people are. But of course, I still watched it and I, like many, definitely loved the songs. The storyline? Not so much.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Statham vs Massive Prehistoric Shark
Before I start my review, I think I should add a quick disclaimer. I knew fine well that I wasn’t walking into a Oscar-worthy, perfect film as soon as I booked my ticket for The Meg. With the exception of Jaws, how many shark films have actually been award worthy? We’ve seen a huge boom in shark popularity ranging from plausible to the downright stupid (yes Sharknado, I’m looking at you and your buddies). But despite my already low expectations, I still have a fair amount of criticism for what I saw.
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy & Punch (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
This had been low on my list of things to see at the film festival but several people recommended it to me so I decided to take a look.
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Beyond the Red Mountains in Books
Nov 8, 2019
Kelvin has lived all his life in the city of Triopolis, a peaceful place between the mountains and the sea. After all there are no other towns or civilisations on the planet, not since the Dark Days when everything changed.
Kelvin's first clue that all might not be as he has been taught when he discovers an old book warning about a mysterious figure called Luther who seems to have been carefully erased from the history of Triopolis. And it is clear that he is not the only one who is aware of secrets.
Elizabeth is the princess of Westville, the centre of a civilisation that has conquered every other city in the world - there are not many. She is locked in a loveless and arranged marriage but is determined to find some way out.
When fate brings Kelvin and Elizabeth together they realise there is a lot more going on than the elders of either city would have them believe. Before long they are on the run, desperately trying to save themselves and their cities from dark forces. They have allies and enemies, but telling one from the other is only half the battle...
Beyond the Red Mountains is a fantasy novel that is of epic proportions but avoids all the tropes and cliches of 'epic' fantasy. There isn't really a great quest, there isn't a dark lord threatening all of existence. All of the characters seem very real and all have their own reasons for their actions, whether these are with or against the main protagonists.
There are many twists and turns and the story doesn't let itself get too bogged down in long conversations or descriptions, letting the story unfold to reveal the narrative and the history. Not every decision Kelvin and Elizabeth make is the right one, but it is always made with the best intentions. The characterisation really does stand out, with a lot of care taken to make the characters believable. I was particularly struck by one of the characters who are opposed to Kelvin and Elizabeth but the reader ends up feeling enormous sympathy for.
There is a (perhaps inevitable) romantic connection between Kelvin and Elizabeth but this is well played and unfolds very realistically and is never overplayed or overstated. Some of the keepers of ancient wisdom they meet are perhaps a little to forthcoming about forbidden knowledge but this means the story doesn't slow but can take the next step so this can be forgiven.
The prose is very simple, clearly aimed at a young adult audience, although some of the themes and scenes are perhaps not for the very young end of the spectrum. As an introduction to lengthy fantasy tales this works very well though. The ending is a real cliff hanger and definitely makes me want to read the sequel.
There were a few more spelling mistakes and incorrect (or plain missing) words in the eBook version I read but this wasn't really a problem, it was always clear what was intended.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to tackle a human-scale epic fantasy novel with a difference, one that cared about all of its characters, even the ones nominally pitched against the 'heroes'.
Kelvin's first clue that all might not be as he has been taught when he discovers an old book warning about a mysterious figure called Luther who seems to have been carefully erased from the history of Triopolis. And it is clear that he is not the only one who is aware of secrets.
Elizabeth is the princess of Westville, the centre of a civilisation that has conquered every other city in the world - there are not many. She is locked in a loveless and arranged marriage but is determined to find some way out.
When fate brings Kelvin and Elizabeth together they realise there is a lot more going on than the elders of either city would have them believe. Before long they are on the run, desperately trying to save themselves and their cities from dark forces. They have allies and enemies, but telling one from the other is only half the battle...
Beyond the Red Mountains is a fantasy novel that is of epic proportions but avoids all the tropes and cliches of 'epic' fantasy. There isn't really a great quest, there isn't a dark lord threatening all of existence. All of the characters seem very real and all have their own reasons for their actions, whether these are with or against the main protagonists.
There are many twists and turns and the story doesn't let itself get too bogged down in long conversations or descriptions, letting the story unfold to reveal the narrative and the history. Not every decision Kelvin and Elizabeth make is the right one, but it is always made with the best intentions. The characterisation really does stand out, with a lot of care taken to make the characters believable. I was particularly struck by one of the characters who are opposed to Kelvin and Elizabeth but the reader ends up feeling enormous sympathy for.
There is a (perhaps inevitable) romantic connection between Kelvin and Elizabeth but this is well played and unfolds very realistically and is never overplayed or overstated. Some of the keepers of ancient wisdom they meet are perhaps a little to forthcoming about forbidden knowledge but this means the story doesn't slow but can take the next step so this can be forgiven.
The prose is very simple, clearly aimed at a young adult audience, although some of the themes and scenes are perhaps not for the very young end of the spectrum. As an introduction to lengthy fantasy tales this works very well though. The ending is a real cliff hanger and definitely makes me want to read the sequel.
There were a few more spelling mistakes and incorrect (or plain missing) words in the eBook version I read but this wasn't really a problem, it was always clear what was intended.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to tackle a human-scale epic fantasy novel with a difference, one that cared about all of its characters, even the ones nominally pitched against the 'heroes'.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After being shipped from New York to Madagascar and then leaving Madagascar only to end up stranded in Africa, our four favorite zoo animals are back and causing a ruckus once again, but this time in Europe.
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted starts off where Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa left off, with Alex the lion(Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra(Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) are stranded in Africa longing to get back to their beloved zoo in New York City. They realize the only way they will be able to return home is by relying on their super competent penguin buddies who have made their way to Monte Carlo with their chimp powered plane and the loot of jewels and money they squandered upon in Africa during the second movie.
So the quartet of four legged lovable characters along with a few familiar lemurs, King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen), the self proclaimed King of Madagascar and his assistants Maurice (Cedric the Entertainer) and Mort (Andy Richter), decide to make their way to Monte Carlo, find the penguins, the chimpanzees, and head to New York.
Once the gang arrives in Monte Carlo it doesn’t take long for them to incite panic. Enter Captain Chantal Dubois (Francis McDormand), an impassive, somewhat indestructible animal control officer, who wants nothing more than to add a lion to her already impressive collection of animal heads mounted on her office wall. Due to her relentless pursuit and unconventional hunting techniques the animals are forced to take refuge aboard a circus train where they are welcomed by a simple-minded sea lion named Stefano (Martin Short). Stefano introduces the group to the rest of the animal circus performers and they each demonstrate their amazing tricks. The train is on its way to London and the circus crew hopes their show will garner the attention of a big time U.S. circus promoter looking to bring a show to New York. This was Alex and company’s ticket home! But would they be up to the challenge of putting on the greatest show anyone has ever seen AND evade Dubois who is hot on their tails every step of the way?
The simple storyline of animals wanting to get home has been the common thread in all three Madagascar movies. Dreamworks Animation rarely reaches the emotional expertise of Pixar, but they always manage to create movies that are still very much engaging, humorous and visually stunning. Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, who directed the first two movies, come together once again and steer clear from the choppy, thrown together sequence of events that have plagued some sequels and trilogies. I truly believe that keeping with the same directoral chemistry plays a big part in this movie’s well-paced and entertaining storyline.
This movie is definitely geared toward the kindergarten and preschool aged audience with much of the action in the movie involving the circus performance and its Cirque du Soleil-type entertainment. Let’s add the 3D component and voila! An amazing, kaleidoscope of lights and pyrotechnics along with wonderful performances of acrobats, seal shot from cannon, high wire dancing giraffe and hippo, and flying penguins. It’s like a box of animal crackers come to life!
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted starts off where Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa left off, with Alex the lion(Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra(Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) are stranded in Africa longing to get back to their beloved zoo in New York City. They realize the only way they will be able to return home is by relying on their super competent penguin buddies who have made their way to Monte Carlo with their chimp powered plane and the loot of jewels and money they squandered upon in Africa during the second movie.
So the quartet of four legged lovable characters along with a few familiar lemurs, King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen), the self proclaimed King of Madagascar and his assistants Maurice (Cedric the Entertainer) and Mort (Andy Richter), decide to make their way to Monte Carlo, find the penguins, the chimpanzees, and head to New York.
Once the gang arrives in Monte Carlo it doesn’t take long for them to incite panic. Enter Captain Chantal Dubois (Francis McDormand), an impassive, somewhat indestructible animal control officer, who wants nothing more than to add a lion to her already impressive collection of animal heads mounted on her office wall. Due to her relentless pursuit and unconventional hunting techniques the animals are forced to take refuge aboard a circus train where they are welcomed by a simple-minded sea lion named Stefano (Martin Short). Stefano introduces the group to the rest of the animal circus performers and they each demonstrate their amazing tricks. The train is on its way to London and the circus crew hopes their show will garner the attention of a big time U.S. circus promoter looking to bring a show to New York. This was Alex and company’s ticket home! But would they be up to the challenge of putting on the greatest show anyone has ever seen AND evade Dubois who is hot on their tails every step of the way?
The simple storyline of animals wanting to get home has been the common thread in all three Madagascar movies. Dreamworks Animation rarely reaches the emotional expertise of Pixar, but they always manage to create movies that are still very much engaging, humorous and visually stunning. Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, who directed the first two movies, come together once again and steer clear from the choppy, thrown together sequence of events that have plagued some sequels and trilogies. I truly believe that keeping with the same directoral chemistry plays a big part in this movie’s well-paced and entertaining storyline.
This movie is definitely geared toward the kindergarten and preschool aged audience with much of the action in the movie involving the circus performance and its Cirque du Soleil-type entertainment. Let’s add the 3D component and voila! An amazing, kaleidoscope of lights and pyrotechnics along with wonderful performances of acrobats, seal shot from cannon, high wire dancing giraffe and hippo, and flying penguins. It’s like a box of animal crackers come to life!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Six Minutes to Midnight (2021) in Movies
Apr 4, 2021 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Historical story (Potential for a great film) (1 more)
Judi Dench
B-grade spy caper antics (1 more)
Some ridiculous plot-points
A "39 Steps-esque" thriller that doesn't match its potential
In "Six Minutes to Midnight", it's the summer of 1939 (so we are in a parallel time-flow here with the events of "The Dig"). A private girl's school - the Augusta Victoria College in Bexhill-on-Sea - is run with loving care by the spinster Miss Rocholl (Judi Dench). But the 'finishing school' is unusual, in that all its teenage students are German. Indeed, they are the offspring of prominent Nazis.
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).