Search
Search results
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.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 3, 2019
I think I was one of the few people that was ultimately disappointed by Spider-Man: Homecoming. After Spider-Man's impressive and thrilling introduction to the Marvel universe during Captain America: Civil War, I felt Homecoming to be somewhat lacking - set pieces that had already been shown in the trailer, bigger set pieces that were difficult to follow on screen and, to quote my review, "too much awkward teen, not enough action hero". I even used the phrase "superhero fatigue", which funnily enough is a phrase currently being bandied around by some for this next Spider-Man venture, Far From Home, particularly in the wake of the intense Avengers: Endgame earlier this year. So, let's just say I was cautiously optimistic heading in to see this movie.
We kick off with a brief introduction to what will dominate the rest of the movie - Nick Fury and Maria Hill arrive in Mexico, where "a cyclone with a face" has completely destroyed a small town. As this new threat returns to wreak even more havoc, a mysterious new hero arrives to face it square on in battle, dramatically declaring to the startled S.H.I.E.L.D agents, "you don't want any part of this". From there, we switch to a lighthearted wrap up of the devastating events surrounding Infinity War/Endgame, in the form of an amateur high school news report. Mourning the loss of fallen heroes (accompanied by Whitney Houston singing 'I Will Always Love You'!), the report goes on to explain how "The Blip" - the term many are using to describe the effects of the 5 year period where half of the population were wiped from existence. Having the population age 5 years while the returning half haven't aged at all naturally has humorous consequences when it comes to students and their school life, but essentially humanity has managed to move on and has learnt to deal with it. Someone who is struggling to move on though, particularly from the loss of mentor/surrogate father, Tony Stark, is young Peter Parker. Desperately in need of a summer vacation, and a break from being Spider-Man, Parker cannot wait to join the rest of his friends, and crucially MJ (Zendaya), on an upcoming school trip which will take them to various European destinations.
But there's no chance of any kind of break for Spider-Man just yet, as Nick Fury has other plans for him. Peter does the unthinkable though and ignores the many phone calls from Fury, until he eventually tracks him down for a face to face meeting in his Venice hotel room. Since the incident in Mexico, S.H.I.E.L.D have been working with the mysterious new hero, Quentin Beck, or 'Mysterio' as he has now been dubbed, and Peter (along with us) are now brought up to speed on the origins of Quentin and these new global threats. Quentin actually comes from an alternate Earth where these creatures, known as The Elementals (monstrous versions of wind, fire, water and air), were responsible for the destruction of not only his world but his entire family too. The most powerful Elemental, fire, is yet to appear on our Earth and Mysterio, along with the help of S.H.I.E.L.D and Spider-Man, need to locate and stop it before it becomes too powerful for them to defeat.
Peter isn't initially interested though, being more concerned about jeopardising his school trip and exposing his identity, not to mention ruining his chances of finally hooking up with MJ. So, the rest of the movie nicely splits itself between teen high school banter/comedy drama and international superhero action. Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) features prominently throughout the movie, helping to guide and mentor Peter in the absence of his old boss Tony Stark, and providing plenty of comic relief along the way too. He also passes onto Peter, a gift from Tony Stark - a pair of Jarvis-like talking shades called EDITH (Even Dead I'm The Hero!) - which initially act as a funny and poignant accessory for Peter, but proves to be a hugely important part of how the rest of the movie plays out.
Beyond that, I'm struggling to avoid spoilers. And there are a lot of them. If you're familiar with the comics though (and despite having some vague familiarity with them, I'd completely forgotten everything!), you'll be able to predict a lot of what comes next anyway. But, once again, I have to say how amazed I am that Marvel managed to produce trailers for this movie which not only mislead you into believing that you know exactly which direction this movie is heading in, but also feature scenes which aren't in the final movie! As a result, I found Far From Home to be a truly wonderful surprise, and even if you know how it's all going to play out, you should still manage to get a huge amount of enjoyment from seeing the masters of storytelling at work yet again. This movie gave me Endgame-level thrills and goose-bump moments, over and over again throughout. Visually, it's outstanding - with impressive action scenes and trippy sequences the likes of which we haven't seen since Doctor Strange. Jake Gyllenhaal is perfect as Mysterio too, really bringing the character to life, and by the end of it all I was just completely blown away. So when the mid credit sequence hit, opening up some shocking possibilities for future movies, I was almost hyperventilating with excitement!
We kick off with a brief introduction to what will dominate the rest of the movie - Nick Fury and Maria Hill arrive in Mexico, where "a cyclone with a face" has completely destroyed a small town. As this new threat returns to wreak even more havoc, a mysterious new hero arrives to face it square on in battle, dramatically declaring to the startled S.H.I.E.L.D agents, "you don't want any part of this". From there, we switch to a lighthearted wrap up of the devastating events surrounding Infinity War/Endgame, in the form of an amateur high school news report. Mourning the loss of fallen heroes (accompanied by Whitney Houston singing 'I Will Always Love You'!), the report goes on to explain how "The Blip" - the term many are using to describe the effects of the 5 year period where half of the population were wiped from existence. Having the population age 5 years while the returning half haven't aged at all naturally has humorous consequences when it comes to students and their school life, but essentially humanity has managed to move on and has learnt to deal with it. Someone who is struggling to move on though, particularly from the loss of mentor/surrogate father, Tony Stark, is young Peter Parker. Desperately in need of a summer vacation, and a break from being Spider-Man, Parker cannot wait to join the rest of his friends, and crucially MJ (Zendaya), on an upcoming school trip which will take them to various European destinations.
But there's no chance of any kind of break for Spider-Man just yet, as Nick Fury has other plans for him. Peter does the unthinkable though and ignores the many phone calls from Fury, until he eventually tracks him down for a face to face meeting in his Venice hotel room. Since the incident in Mexico, S.H.I.E.L.D have been working with the mysterious new hero, Quentin Beck, or 'Mysterio' as he has now been dubbed, and Peter (along with us) are now brought up to speed on the origins of Quentin and these new global threats. Quentin actually comes from an alternate Earth where these creatures, known as The Elementals (monstrous versions of wind, fire, water and air), were responsible for the destruction of not only his world but his entire family too. The most powerful Elemental, fire, is yet to appear on our Earth and Mysterio, along with the help of S.H.I.E.L.D and Spider-Man, need to locate and stop it before it becomes too powerful for them to defeat.
Peter isn't initially interested though, being more concerned about jeopardising his school trip and exposing his identity, not to mention ruining his chances of finally hooking up with MJ. So, the rest of the movie nicely splits itself between teen high school banter/comedy drama and international superhero action. Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) features prominently throughout the movie, helping to guide and mentor Peter in the absence of his old boss Tony Stark, and providing plenty of comic relief along the way too. He also passes onto Peter, a gift from Tony Stark - a pair of Jarvis-like talking shades called EDITH (Even Dead I'm The Hero!) - which initially act as a funny and poignant accessory for Peter, but proves to be a hugely important part of how the rest of the movie plays out.
Beyond that, I'm struggling to avoid spoilers. And there are a lot of them. If you're familiar with the comics though (and despite having some vague familiarity with them, I'd completely forgotten everything!), you'll be able to predict a lot of what comes next anyway. But, once again, I have to say how amazed I am that Marvel managed to produce trailers for this movie which not only mislead you into believing that you know exactly which direction this movie is heading in, but also feature scenes which aren't in the final movie! As a result, I found Far From Home to be a truly wonderful surprise, and even if you know how it's all going to play out, you should still manage to get a huge amount of enjoyment from seeing the masters of storytelling at work yet again. This movie gave me Endgame-level thrills and goose-bump moments, over and over again throughout. Visually, it's outstanding - with impressive action scenes and trippy sequences the likes of which we haven't seen since Doctor Strange. Jake Gyllenhaal is perfect as Mysterio too, really bringing the character to life, and by the end of it all I was just completely blown away. So when the mid credit sequence hit, opening up some shocking possibilities for future movies, I was almost hyperventilating with excitement!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Rachel McAdams and Dan Stevens steal most of the scenes (1 more)
A real feelgood movie that spoofs the unspoofable pretty well
My lovely farce
Will Ferrell's output over the last few years has been decidedly patchy. I have to go back to "Get Hard" to find one of his movies that really got to my funny bone. But this latest Netflix offering hits the spot for me.
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Cumberland (1142 KP) created a post in The Smashbomb Book Club
Jun 13, 2019
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!