Search
Search results
SING to READ
Education and Music
App
“Educational, great fun and simply the best way to help adults and children understand the choices...
Empire magazine: movie news, interviews & reviews
Magazines & Newspapers
8.0
Rate It
App
Looking for World-Class Movie Coverage? Empire on the iPad is a smorgasbord of A-list stars...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
It's difficult to know where to begin. I have strong feelings about Disney remakes in general, I was open to the idea until I saw some. I can understand remaking some that stand a chance of being mainly actual live-action like Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast, and I'm looking forward to Mulan despite its lack of Mushu... but... remaking something as "live-action" with realism when you have to include things that aren't realistic (talking animals) it seems pointless to me.
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
My love for Eurovision is as deep as some of the songs in Eurovision attempt to be, I live for ridiculous costumes and dance moves... and I LOVE quips from Graham. I'm glad I didn't have a lot of time to really think about what this film might come out to be, it would definitely have hindered the watching process.
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
Chirp! Bird Songs & Calls of Britain and Europe +
Reference and Education
App
Chirp! The original app for identifying and learning bird songs - and still the best! As seen on...
The Weather Station by The Weather Station
Album Watch
On her fourth (and tellingly self-titled) album as The Weather Station, Tamara Lindeman reinvents,...
alternative folk rock
KidloLand: Kids Nursery Rhymes
Education and Games
App
KidloLand is an award-winning app for kids (1-5 yrs) with 1000+ nursery rhymes, songs, games and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Elvis (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022
Butler Shines
Director Baz Luhrmann is one of those artists that I always keep an eye out for. His artistic vision is unique and while the films he directs don’t always work - MOULIN ROUGE is on of my all-time favorites, AUSTRALIA is a mess and his take on the GREAT GATSBY works…mostly - but the one thing that can be said about him is that his projects are always interesting (especially visually). So when he decided to create a bio-pic of “The King”, Elvis Presley, I was intrigued.
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)