Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
An animated masterpiece? I should Coco!
I had no great expectations of this film. In fact, I honestly went to see it solely because – with the lazy multiplex habit of milking films like Jedi, Jumanji and (God help us) Pitch Perfect 3 – this was the only film at my local cinemas that I hadn’t seen. But wow… just wow!
For this is a masterpiece, and with the Oscar nominations released yesterday, it almost seems a crime that it wasn’t included in the Best Picture list (it must surely follow its Golden Globes win and snatch the Best Animated film category… although I admit that “Loving Vincent” clearly looks like it took a lot more work!).
Miguel (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez) lives in the quaint Mexican village of Santa Cecilia with his extended shoe-making family, including his grandmother Abuelita (Renée Victor) and his wizened old great-grandmother Coco (Ana Ofelia Murguía, via a brilliant piece of animation). Coco was a child from a broken home, with music being the cause of all the trouble, and this has led to a multi-generational ban that Abuelita polices with fierce passion. Unfortunately, Miguel “has the music in him”, idolising the – now deceased – singing sensation and matinee idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt, “Doctor Strange“). Desperate to perform in the Piazza talent contest, held during the evening of the “Day of the Dead” festival, Miguel takes destiny into his own hands…. which might prove fatal as he is dragged, alive and kicking, into the ‘land of the dead’.
The film is a thing of beauty. Some of the scenes: notably the candlelit graveyard, the “petal bridge” and the first sight of the land of the dead are done with such majesty and art that they take your breath away. Literally jaw dropping! (Try to make sure you see it on the big screen). So there are similarities here with “Blade Runner 2049” which also had images that could easily grace the walls of any art gallery in the world.
Where the film deviates from “Blade Runner” though is the original story by Lee Unkrich (who also directs), Adrian Molina (who co-directs), Jason Katz and Matthew Aldrich. Whereas the sci-fi reboot was a bit flaccid, story-wise, Coco develops in a surprisingly non-linear way. The story you think you are on suddenly does unexpected switchbacks and gets very deep indeed.
Deep? But this is a kids film right? Well, no, not really. Sure it has a lot of fun skeleton action, in the style of the re-constituting Olaf from “Frozen”, and a cute but mangy dog with a ridiculously long tongue. But the themes exposed here are FAR from childish. They encompass family, ambition, work/life balance, death and remembrance in such a fashion that parents exposing the film to young kids (I would think, up to 7 or 8 years old) should be ready with sensitive answers to “Mummy/Daddy, why…” questions so as to avoid significant anxiety and nightmares. The relationship between Miguel and his grandmother Abuelita, switching from violent outbursts to sudden loving hugs, might – I think – also confuse and disturb young children. Its UK certificate is “PG”, not “U”, for good reason.
So be prepared to cry. If you are anything like me, there will be a point in this film where you are desperately trying to recall the faces and voices of all of those people in your life that you have lost over the years. And some of the final jolts in this film will leave you almost as drained (almost!) as the start of “Up”.
As befits the subject matter there is a great score, with a mariachi feel, by Michael Giacchino, including a nice rendition of “When You Wish Upon A Star” over the Disney castle production logo. And there are some great songs, including the pivotal “Remember Me” which is now Oscar nominated.
Passport control at Heathrow was never like this.
Watch out for some nice cameo voice performances as well: Cheech Marin (from Cheech and Chong) plays the ‘border control’ officer, and Pixar regular John Ratzenberger (Hamm in “Toy Story”) turns up again playing Juan Ortodoncia, a character whose dentist fondly remembers him (LOL)!
With John Lasseter recently dragged into the #metoo scandal, and taking 6 months off to ponder on his “missteps”, one hopes this will not knock Pixar off its track too much. For with this evidence the studio shouldn’t keep trying to milk existing “Incredibles” and “Toy Story” franchises, but come up with more original entertainments like this. Because, for me, this rises into my top-three favourite Pixar films of all time (along with Toy Story and Wall-E).
For this is a masterpiece, and with the Oscar nominations released yesterday, it almost seems a crime that it wasn’t included in the Best Picture list (it must surely follow its Golden Globes win and snatch the Best Animated film category… although I admit that “Loving Vincent” clearly looks like it took a lot more work!).
Miguel (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez) lives in the quaint Mexican village of Santa Cecilia with his extended shoe-making family, including his grandmother Abuelita (Renée Victor) and his wizened old great-grandmother Coco (Ana Ofelia Murguía, via a brilliant piece of animation). Coco was a child from a broken home, with music being the cause of all the trouble, and this has led to a multi-generational ban that Abuelita polices with fierce passion. Unfortunately, Miguel “has the music in him”, idolising the – now deceased – singing sensation and matinee idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt, “Doctor Strange“). Desperate to perform in the Piazza talent contest, held during the evening of the “Day of the Dead” festival, Miguel takes destiny into his own hands…. which might prove fatal as he is dragged, alive and kicking, into the ‘land of the dead’.
The film is a thing of beauty. Some of the scenes: notably the candlelit graveyard, the “petal bridge” and the first sight of the land of the dead are done with such majesty and art that they take your breath away. Literally jaw dropping! (Try to make sure you see it on the big screen). So there are similarities here with “Blade Runner 2049” which also had images that could easily grace the walls of any art gallery in the world.
Where the film deviates from “Blade Runner” though is the original story by Lee Unkrich (who also directs), Adrian Molina (who co-directs), Jason Katz and Matthew Aldrich. Whereas the sci-fi reboot was a bit flaccid, story-wise, Coco develops in a surprisingly non-linear way. The story you think you are on suddenly does unexpected switchbacks and gets very deep indeed.
Deep? But this is a kids film right? Well, no, not really. Sure it has a lot of fun skeleton action, in the style of the re-constituting Olaf from “Frozen”, and a cute but mangy dog with a ridiculously long tongue. But the themes exposed here are FAR from childish. They encompass family, ambition, work/life balance, death and remembrance in such a fashion that parents exposing the film to young kids (I would think, up to 7 or 8 years old) should be ready with sensitive answers to “Mummy/Daddy, why…” questions so as to avoid significant anxiety and nightmares. The relationship between Miguel and his grandmother Abuelita, switching from violent outbursts to sudden loving hugs, might – I think – also confuse and disturb young children. Its UK certificate is “PG”, not “U”, for good reason.
So be prepared to cry. If you are anything like me, there will be a point in this film where you are desperately trying to recall the faces and voices of all of those people in your life that you have lost over the years. And some of the final jolts in this film will leave you almost as drained (almost!) as the start of “Up”.
As befits the subject matter there is a great score, with a mariachi feel, by Michael Giacchino, including a nice rendition of “When You Wish Upon A Star” over the Disney castle production logo. And there are some great songs, including the pivotal “Remember Me” which is now Oscar nominated.
Passport control at Heathrow was never like this.
Watch out for some nice cameo voice performances as well: Cheech Marin (from Cheech and Chong) plays the ‘border control’ officer, and Pixar regular John Ratzenberger (Hamm in “Toy Story”) turns up again playing Juan Ortodoncia, a character whose dentist fondly remembers him (LOL)!
With John Lasseter recently dragged into the #metoo scandal, and taking 6 months off to ponder on his “missteps”, one hopes this will not knock Pixar off its track too much. For with this evidence the studio shouldn’t keep trying to milk existing “Incredibles” and “Toy Story” franchises, but come up with more original entertainments like this. Because, for me, this rises into my top-three favourite Pixar films of all time (along with Toy Story and Wall-E).
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Space Opera in Books
Jan 25, 2020 (Updated Jan 25, 2020)
Fun writing (2 more)
Creative
Witty
Overwritten (3 more)
Lacking plot
Disjointed and distracted
Boring
Technicolor Encyclopedia entry
Space Opera seems to be a book, that based on other reviews, you either love or hate. The love reviewers can't seem to tell me why they love it, most attempting to replicate the style of the author and relying on a menagerie of adjectives to express themselves. "A glitter punk, Eurovision romp!" "Technicolor whirlwind!" but not actually saying WHY they liked it, or just saying "well you didn't get the humor". The ones who disliked it are pretty clear, and as I struggled with this book I found I agreed with their complaints. However, I have to thank the sheer number of DNFs from the disliked group for causing me to, ironically, finish it. I hate DNFing books, to begin with, but when I saw just how many bad reviews didn't make it through, it felt as bad as the good reviews not actually reviewing anything. So I powered through, and honestly, it was worth finishing. The author really got back on track and it was a great ending.
Valente has in fact given us a Eurovision, glitter punk, electric baby with Douglas Adams, her writing fantastical and humorous, her characters vapid but in a washed-out musician kind of way. She really thought about this book, creating droves of aliens and probably destroying a number of thesauri to bring them to life. We follow Decibel Jones of the "oh you haven't heard of it, well we used to be a thing" Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. A washed-up, no longer active glitter punk band who is an amalgam of every band you probably are thinking of when trying to grasp what that description means.
The book opens with a wonderfully witty description of how there is in fact other life out there in the universe, life is easy to come by, they've just been off doing a galactic war and while they were gone we kind of popped up. Life is stupid. This part is the best part of the book. The humor is on point, the prose magnificant. She is spot on and very pointed in her argument for why war happens. It's people vs meat, and how does one determine something isn't meat, but in fact sentient? Well, no one really figured that out, hence the galactic war, but NOW post-war they think they've figured it out. Intergalactic Music competition. Makes sense, only something sentient could create music right?
Well, this year is a special year because Earth is invited, we've been deemed "may be sentient", but questionable enough that they'd rather not let us just hang out and become annoying someday. So we have to present a band and performance for consideration. We just have to not place last. If we don't place last, we're part of the club and we'll be a-ok. If we place last, we'll be destroyed, because they already think we're annoying and that will mean we're meat. People vs meat remember?
So, one day everyone on the planet earth, everyone, awake or sleeping is visited by the blue birdlike projection of our assigned guides, the Esca, and alien species that are new to the whole being accepted as a sentient thing, and will guide us through the competition. Which it is now telling us about, Suprise! They've chosen a list of musicians they think will do well, however it's outdated and only one band is really able to do it, the has-beens, who are they, Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. Time was rough on our glam-punk friends as it tends to be on musicians, they lost the third member about a decade ago, the two remaining no longer talk. Decibel is a trainwreck, and Oort St Ultraviolet is now just a dad who very much wants to be a regular dude. But now they're being whisked off into space to sing for the world's salvation.
Sounds pretty fun right? This plus Douglas Adams type prose and humor? A real knock out. Unfortunately, that story I just described takes up... maybe a quarter of the book, MAYBE. You can pull the main story out and put it into a book that might be too small to be a novella. Because of this, the backstory, development, and exploration of these characters are slim to nothing. There is some mind you, but very little. It isn't until the 180pg mark or so that Valente actually decides to focus on the plot, giving very little time to do the entire Grand Prix, the actual competition takes up a page. A 288-page book about a singing competition and only 1-2 pages is actually the singing competition. Tack on another 10 maybe for the weird cocktail death party right before, that didn't have enough attempted death to make any real point of it, plus maybe another 5-10 scattered throughout the book on the back story and leading up to the story, and we've got MAYBE 25 pages of the actual plot. My math is wrong, I know, but it sure FEELS like this.
So, in a 288-page book, with 25 pages being the actual story, what are the other 263 pages? It was the author being somewhat... I don't mean to sound mean, but full of herself? She tried WAY too hard on this style she was going for. It felt like an "oh, you liked that opening chapter, didn't you? You totally read it out loud to your boyfriend, well here let me give it to you again, and again, and ... again". This book suffers from a severe case of needing to be edited. Of someone saying "that's enough now dear, but what about the story". Every few pages of the backstory of the plot we got were met with full chapters, sometimes multiple of Valente describing yet another alien species she's created, in yet another chain of witty simile and metaphor. To the point where sometimes I no longer knew what was happening, they were all interchangeable, which alien are we talking about now? It went on and on and on, and I never knew how such humorous writing could be just so soul suckingly boring. When she ran out of aliens it was describing previous grand prix's and how the aliens sang. In the exact same, formulaic, witty simile, witty simile, witty simile. Don't get me wrong, there were some absolute gems in here. Some that made me laugh out loud. But it's all about the ratio. I would trade in a heartbeat the ratio in this book. 263 pages of plot, and 25 pages of aliens described in witty simile. It took everything in my power after the third alien chapter to not skim. But she fit so much into a sentence that I was scared somewhere hiding would be a plot point (spoiler alert, there wasn't, skim away).
Then around the 180 page mark, a flip was switched, it was almost as if she went "crap, a story!" the adjective use was slimmed down dramatically and we actually got more than one chapter in a row with a plot point. But at this point, it was too late, the end of the book was hurdling at us and very little had happened and the book pretty much fizzled out with an "oh yeah, the Grand Prix happened". Mind you, the finale was very heartwarming and I liked it a lot. I just wish I hadn't had to read a full chapter about hairbrush interspecies sex to get there, and instead had more of it. But ironically, the hairbrush sex had more plot advancement that the majority of the book.
The ending did, however, for one moment, make me forget that I had just read an encyclopedia of descriptors and was happy for a few minutes. So good on her for that. That proves to me that she can write more than glittery descriptions, which then made me sad I didn't have more of that writing. With just a spattering of the gold of her opening chapters. I am glad I finished the book, the story, what little there was, was worth the read. However, I have no desire to read any other of Valente's writing now, and if there was a sequel, I just don't think I have it in me to read another 263 pages of description. Cool idea, good ability, just terribly executed. She could easily have released a separate book, expanding on a handful of species she established in the book, like an alien compendium, and I would have read it, and laughed, and been okay because I went into it expecting it. But I went into this wanting a story, not a neon throwup encyclopedia of just how "oh so creative" Valente is. That came off harsh, I know, but they blew past the fine line of interesting and well into the self-serving, look what I can do, territory. What suffered for it wasn't just a large number of DNFs, and my sanity for a few days, but an actually interesting, fun, Eurovision, glitter punk, heartwarming story about loss, life, how stupid it is, how beautiful it is, and why we should fight for it. It's in there, hiding beneath the layers and layers of word vomit. I want that story. Please release a second edition that is just that, the opening, and say... 3-5 of your favorite aliens Valente, I promise I'll give it another try if you do.
Valente has in fact given us a Eurovision, glitter punk, electric baby with Douglas Adams, her writing fantastical and humorous, her characters vapid but in a washed-out musician kind of way. She really thought about this book, creating droves of aliens and probably destroying a number of thesauri to bring them to life. We follow Decibel Jones of the "oh you haven't heard of it, well we used to be a thing" Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. A washed-up, no longer active glitter punk band who is an amalgam of every band you probably are thinking of when trying to grasp what that description means.
The book opens with a wonderfully witty description of how there is in fact other life out there in the universe, life is easy to come by, they've just been off doing a galactic war and while they were gone we kind of popped up. Life is stupid. This part is the best part of the book. The humor is on point, the prose magnificant. She is spot on and very pointed in her argument for why war happens. It's people vs meat, and how does one determine something isn't meat, but in fact sentient? Well, no one really figured that out, hence the galactic war, but NOW post-war they think they've figured it out. Intergalactic Music competition. Makes sense, only something sentient could create music right?
Well, this year is a special year because Earth is invited, we've been deemed "may be sentient", but questionable enough that they'd rather not let us just hang out and become annoying someday. So we have to present a band and performance for consideration. We just have to not place last. If we don't place last, we're part of the club and we'll be a-ok. If we place last, we'll be destroyed, because they already think we're annoying and that will mean we're meat. People vs meat remember?
So, one day everyone on the planet earth, everyone, awake or sleeping is visited by the blue birdlike projection of our assigned guides, the Esca, and alien species that are new to the whole being accepted as a sentient thing, and will guide us through the competition. Which it is now telling us about, Suprise! They've chosen a list of musicians they think will do well, however it's outdated and only one band is really able to do it, the has-beens, who are they, Decibel Jones and the Absolute Zeros. Time was rough on our glam-punk friends as it tends to be on musicians, they lost the third member about a decade ago, the two remaining no longer talk. Decibel is a trainwreck, and Oort St Ultraviolet is now just a dad who very much wants to be a regular dude. But now they're being whisked off into space to sing for the world's salvation.
Sounds pretty fun right? This plus Douglas Adams type prose and humor? A real knock out. Unfortunately, that story I just described takes up... maybe a quarter of the book, MAYBE. You can pull the main story out and put it into a book that might be too small to be a novella. Because of this, the backstory, development, and exploration of these characters are slim to nothing. There is some mind you, but very little. It isn't until the 180pg mark or so that Valente actually decides to focus on the plot, giving very little time to do the entire Grand Prix, the actual competition takes up a page. A 288-page book about a singing competition and only 1-2 pages is actually the singing competition. Tack on another 10 maybe for the weird cocktail death party right before, that didn't have enough attempted death to make any real point of it, plus maybe another 5-10 scattered throughout the book on the back story and leading up to the story, and we've got MAYBE 25 pages of the actual plot. My math is wrong, I know, but it sure FEELS like this.
So, in a 288-page book, with 25 pages being the actual story, what are the other 263 pages? It was the author being somewhat... I don't mean to sound mean, but full of herself? She tried WAY too hard on this style she was going for. It felt like an "oh, you liked that opening chapter, didn't you? You totally read it out loud to your boyfriend, well here let me give it to you again, and again, and ... again". This book suffers from a severe case of needing to be edited. Of someone saying "that's enough now dear, but what about the story". Every few pages of the backstory of the plot we got were met with full chapters, sometimes multiple of Valente describing yet another alien species she's created, in yet another chain of witty simile and metaphor. To the point where sometimes I no longer knew what was happening, they were all interchangeable, which alien are we talking about now? It went on and on and on, and I never knew how such humorous writing could be just so soul suckingly boring. When she ran out of aliens it was describing previous grand prix's and how the aliens sang. In the exact same, formulaic, witty simile, witty simile, witty simile. Don't get me wrong, there were some absolute gems in here. Some that made me laugh out loud. But it's all about the ratio. I would trade in a heartbeat the ratio in this book. 263 pages of plot, and 25 pages of aliens described in witty simile. It took everything in my power after the third alien chapter to not skim. But she fit so much into a sentence that I was scared somewhere hiding would be a plot point (spoiler alert, there wasn't, skim away).
Then around the 180 page mark, a flip was switched, it was almost as if she went "crap, a story!" the adjective use was slimmed down dramatically and we actually got more than one chapter in a row with a plot point. But at this point, it was too late, the end of the book was hurdling at us and very little had happened and the book pretty much fizzled out with an "oh yeah, the Grand Prix happened". Mind you, the finale was very heartwarming and I liked it a lot. I just wish I hadn't had to read a full chapter about hairbrush interspecies sex to get there, and instead had more of it. But ironically, the hairbrush sex had more plot advancement that the majority of the book.
The ending did, however, for one moment, make me forget that I had just read an encyclopedia of descriptors and was happy for a few minutes. So good on her for that. That proves to me that she can write more than glittery descriptions, which then made me sad I didn't have more of that writing. With just a spattering of the gold of her opening chapters. I am glad I finished the book, the story, what little there was, was worth the read. However, I have no desire to read any other of Valente's writing now, and if there was a sequel, I just don't think I have it in me to read another 263 pages of description. Cool idea, good ability, just terribly executed. She could easily have released a separate book, expanding on a handful of species she established in the book, like an alien compendium, and I would have read it, and laughed, and been okay because I went into it expecting it. But I went into this wanting a story, not a neon throwup encyclopedia of just how "oh so creative" Valente is. That came off harsh, I know, but they blew past the fine line of interesting and well into the self-serving, look what I can do, territory. What suffered for it wasn't just a large number of DNFs, and my sanity for a few days, but an actually interesting, fun, Eurovision, glitter punk, heartwarming story about loss, life, how stupid it is, how beautiful it is, and why we should fight for it. It's in there, hiding beneath the layers and layers of word vomit. I want that story. Please release a second edition that is just that, the opening, and say... 3-5 of your favorite aliens Valente, I promise I'll give it another try if you do.
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/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Iron Lady (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Meryl Streep certainly has an impressive roster of films under her belt. She’s reduced Anne Hathaway to tears in The Devil Wears Prada, she’s played the role of struggling hotelier in the all singing, all dancing Mamma Mia and has racked up an astonishing 16 Oscar nominations for films like Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie’s Choice. However, here, she perhaps takes on her biggest role to date portraying arguably the most controversial figure in British politics; Baroness Thatcher. Can she pull it off? Did you really need to ask?
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunted in Books
Jun 23, 2019
A lot of inconsistencies (1 more)
Stereo-typical characters
A murder begins the story of 'The Haunted,' where Vega starts with every parent's nightmare:
a little girl named Maribeth is killed in the cellar of the Steele House by an unseen force. We jump to three years later, where our main character, Hendricks, is moving into this house with her parents and baby brother- - - a family that is unaware of the murder that took place in the cellar. Vega does a wonderful job of steering the paranormal aspects away from the usual ones that most readers are used to. But although the story is good, the writing is poorly executed.
Starting with the teenaged girl Hendricks, she tells us that she refuses to be a stereo-type, but her first thoughts on the ride to school are of her ex-boyfriend, Grayson. But this is a young adult book, so a young girl obsessing over her ex is to be expected. Yet, when Hendricks gets to her new high school, she quickly begins to stereo-type everyone she meets by what they are wearing. Unfortunately, every character in this story, including Hendricks parents, are stereo-types. Eddie, who wears nothing but black clothing, is the outcast; Portia, who wears too short of skirts and too tight of shirts, is the makeup obsessed girly-girl; Raven, who tries to be funny, is the sporty best friend, and, Connor, who seems to be the only character that Vega tried to keep away from his stereo-type, is a friendly jock who loves his large family.
Readers learn early on that Hendricks' break-up with her ex, Grayson, was a traumatic event for her- - - as Hendricks releases more and more memories, it's soon easy to see that the relationship was an emotional abusive one; from Grayson telling her how to dress to him influencing the way she acted around other people, including who she was allowed to be around. In the middle of all this, Hendricks begins to learn the history of the Steele House, and we find out that Maribeth may not have been the only one murdered there. When Hendricks isn't trying to drink alcohol in almost every chapter, she begins experiencing strange things in the house, including one very similar to Maribeth's experience, but sadly, the paranormal aspect is the only good part of this book.
'The Haunted' could have been a great story, but there are so many inconsistencies, some even on the very next page. Such as, on page 44, Hendricks sees a singing doll waking up her baby brother inside his room (Vega literally states 'in the middle of his room'), but the very next page, Hendricks is suddenly scooping up the doll outside of her brother's room to put it away. On page 157, Hendricks is being pinned against a wall in the cellar by an unseen force, one of her arms is against her back, but suddenly she is able to use both hands to push off the wall, but it was never stated that her arm became unpinned.
One of Vega's biggest mistakes in 'The Haunted' was using the same handful of descriptions for emotions with every single character throughout the entire book. Such as, if a character was trying to make a decision, they always bit their lip; if a character was confused, they always furrowed their brow; if a character was embarrassed, they always had a reddening face. Vega never took advantage of other body language to convey these emotions, causing the story to come up short.
As I have said, the only good part of this book was the paranormal aspect, and the ghosts happen to be the only interesting characters. If I had to choose my favorite part of this story, I would have to choose when Eddie and Hendricks bring in the occult store owner, Ileana. Following this chapter, the best part of the paranormal aspects happen, but I don't want to spoil that for anyone who may want to read this. Vega is crafty in keeping up the suspense throughout this entire time, this is apparently where her strength in writing occurs. She amazingly describes scenes where readers can easily imagine them happening in reality. Her take on hauntings is one that is rarely seen and I think should be utilized in paranormal fiction more often.
'The Haunting' just didn't add up for me. It seems the story was written too hastily that beginning writer mistakes were made and overlooked, but most young adult readers may be able to look past this. Like Stephen King, Vega has great story-telling power in the horror genre, but in 'The Haunting,' I don't feel she was fully able to display this because the focus on Hendricks' life drama took over most of it. If I were to recommend this to anyone, I would only recommend it to people who like teenaged drama mixed in with a ghost story.
a little girl named Maribeth is killed in the cellar of the Steele House by an unseen force. We jump to three years later, where our main character, Hendricks, is moving into this house with her parents and baby brother- - - a family that is unaware of the murder that took place in the cellar. Vega does a wonderful job of steering the paranormal aspects away from the usual ones that most readers are used to. But although the story is good, the writing is poorly executed.
Starting with the teenaged girl Hendricks, she tells us that she refuses to be a stereo-type, but her first thoughts on the ride to school are of her ex-boyfriend, Grayson. But this is a young adult book, so a young girl obsessing over her ex is to be expected. Yet, when Hendricks gets to her new high school, she quickly begins to stereo-type everyone she meets by what they are wearing. Unfortunately, every character in this story, including Hendricks parents, are stereo-types. Eddie, who wears nothing but black clothing, is the outcast; Portia, who wears too short of skirts and too tight of shirts, is the makeup obsessed girly-girl; Raven, who tries to be funny, is the sporty best friend, and, Connor, who seems to be the only character that Vega tried to keep away from his stereo-type, is a friendly jock who loves his large family.
Readers learn early on that Hendricks' break-up with her ex, Grayson, was a traumatic event for her- - - as Hendricks releases more and more memories, it's soon easy to see that the relationship was an emotional abusive one; from Grayson telling her how to dress to him influencing the way she acted around other people, including who she was allowed to be around. In the middle of all this, Hendricks begins to learn the history of the Steele House, and we find out that Maribeth may not have been the only one murdered there. When Hendricks isn't trying to drink alcohol in almost every chapter, she begins experiencing strange things in the house, including one very similar to Maribeth's experience, but sadly, the paranormal aspect is the only good part of this book.
'The Haunted' could have been a great story, but there are so many inconsistencies, some even on the very next page. Such as, on page 44, Hendricks sees a singing doll waking up her baby brother inside his room (Vega literally states 'in the middle of his room'), but the very next page, Hendricks is suddenly scooping up the doll outside of her brother's room to put it away. On page 157, Hendricks is being pinned against a wall in the cellar by an unseen force, one of her arms is against her back, but suddenly she is able to use both hands to push off the wall, but it was never stated that her arm became unpinned.
One of Vega's biggest mistakes in 'The Haunted' was using the same handful of descriptions for emotions with every single character throughout the entire book. Such as, if a character was trying to make a decision, they always bit their lip; if a character was confused, they always furrowed their brow; if a character was embarrassed, they always had a reddening face. Vega never took advantage of other body language to convey these emotions, causing the story to come up short.
As I have said, the only good part of this book was the paranormal aspect, and the ghosts happen to be the only interesting characters. If I had to choose my favorite part of this story, I would have to choose when Eddie and Hendricks bring in the occult store owner, Ileana. Following this chapter, the best part of the paranormal aspects happen, but I don't want to spoil that for anyone who may want to read this. Vega is crafty in keeping up the suspense throughout this entire time, this is apparently where her strength in writing occurs. She amazingly describes scenes where readers can easily imagine them happening in reality. Her take on hauntings is one that is rarely seen and I think should be utilized in paranormal fiction more often.
'The Haunting' just didn't add up for me. It seems the story was written too hastily that beginning writer mistakes were made and overlooked, but most young adult readers may be able to look past this. Like Stephen King, Vega has great story-telling power in the horror genre, but in 'The Haunting,' I don't feel she was fully able to display this because the focus on Hendricks' life drama took over most of it. If I were to recommend this to anyone, I would only recommend it to people who like teenaged drama mixed in with a ghost story.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
The Crowning of the Fire King by Sorcerer
Album Watch
Sorcerer was formed in Stockholm, Sweden in 1988 by Johnny Hagel (Tiamat, Sundown, Lithium), Tommy...
metal