Search
Search results
Learn To Play Guitar Solos
Music and Education
App
Learn how to play guitar solos with this selection of 176 easy to follow tutorial lessons. ...
Take Me Apart by Kelela
5.8
Rate It
Album Watch
With great anticipation, Kelela's debut album emerges as an epic portrait of an artist spanning the...
dance electronic R&B pop
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in Movies
Dec 18, 2021
Willem Dafoe (2 more)
The on-screen bickering between characters.
The Doc Ock, Doctor Strange, and villainous team-up action sequences.
The humor doesn't always land. (2 more)
Peter's idiotic logic.
Lizard is supremely underutilized.
Riding the Nostalgia Train
Spider-Man: No Way Home picks up immediately after the events of Spider-Man: Far From Home. Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal) has revealed to the world that Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is Spider-Man. The world is torn in thinking that Peter is either still a hero or behind the drone attacks on London like Beck stated before his death.
Peter is now in a relationship with MJ (Zendaya) while Ned (Jacob Batalon) tags along as the third wheel more than the guy in the chair. As the three attempt to get into MIT and other colleges, MJ and Ned are punished for being associated with Peter. Feeling guilty, Peter takes it upon himself to contact Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who eventually agrees to perform a spell that would make everyone forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. However, Peter’s motor mouth and constant need to change Strange’s spell botches it and ends up opening the multiverse.
Early on, the humor in Spider-Man: No Way Home is lacking and a little lame. Much of the film rides on Peter’s relationship with MJ. Peter, MJ, and Ned have become inseparable in the film thanks to the events of Homecoming, Far From Home, Infinity War, and Endgame. Nearly everything boils down to them making decisions as a trio even when Peter is out there as Spider-Man. The humor in the film doesn’t really find its footing until the villains come along and even then it starts off pretty rough (making fun of the Otto Octavius name in the trailer is a prime example).
Peter’s solution to all of these villains invading his universe from their own is pure stupidity. The desire to do what’s best for someone’s well being is there and you understand why Peter is so adamant about going in the direction that he does. However, he has the opportunity to end all of this early on with little to no repercussions other than some structural damage that he is able to repair in one night.
Peter chooses to change the fate of these villains with the best intentions and suffers for it. In a way, it’s inevitable as it factors in to and is motivation for who Peter Parker and Spider-Man are as essentially one heroic character. “It’s what they do,” as they say several times in the film. That doesn’t mean you have to swallow it as something a supposed genius and one of Marvel’s smartest minds would conjure up though.
Next to the surprises the film has in store for first time viewers, the villains are arguably the highlight of the film. Peter’s fight with Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina) on the bridge is nearly on par with the Spider-Man/Doc Ock fight on the train from Spider-Man 2. Willem Dafoe is also still Spider-Man’s greatest and most sinister adversary as Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin two decades later.
Dafoe’s one stipulation for returning to the franchise was that he would be allowed to do all of his own stunts even at 66 years old; he believes it all factors in to his performance and it shows. You feel sympathy for Norman and admire his brilliance, but he’s plagued with this gushingly nefarious and uncontrollable alternate personality. With that reverberating laugh and amazing facial expressions, Dafoe literally steals the film every time he’s on screen.
The bickering in the film results in some of the most entertaining sequences in the film. There’s at least two instances, one between all of the villains when they’re all in the same room and another sequence later that occurs right before the big fight scene between Spider-Man and the five villains that have crossed over, that are just incredible and it’s basically just dialogue.
Screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers deserve a lot of the credit. If it wasn’t for their writing then those back-and-forth dialogue exchanges between characters wouldn’t exist. But the performances from the cast also factor in to how great those sequences are. Much of the older returning cast have joked about only returning for the money, but it’s clear that there was some enjoyment of not only the script but also being able to work with such a talented group of people.
Speaking of trains, the Spider-Man/Doctor Strange battle in the mirror dimension is one of No Way Home’s visual treats. Doctor Strange and his magical origins opened up the cosmic aspect for the MCU, which has always resulted in trippy and otherworldly sequences that are tonally different and unlike anything else from the other Marvel films. Seeing Spider-Man swing around as the world is upside down while dodging kaleidoscopic skyscrapers and barely escaping gravity defying portals results in a sequence especially memorable for MCU fans.
Spider-Man: No Way Home isn’t without its flaws, but it is mostly exactly what it’s advertised to be. The film doesn’t necessarily redefine the, “With great power comes great responsibility,” aspect for Tom Holland’s Spider-Man but it without a doubt gives the MCU version of Spider-Man his version of that principle. No Way Home is a nostalgic extravaganza that exceeds expectations and is a perfect and satisfying bookend for the first three Tom Holland Spider-Man movies.
Peter is now in a relationship with MJ (Zendaya) while Ned (Jacob Batalon) tags along as the third wheel more than the guy in the chair. As the three attempt to get into MIT and other colleges, MJ and Ned are punished for being associated with Peter. Feeling guilty, Peter takes it upon himself to contact Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who eventually agrees to perform a spell that would make everyone forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. However, Peter’s motor mouth and constant need to change Strange’s spell botches it and ends up opening the multiverse.
Early on, the humor in Spider-Man: No Way Home is lacking and a little lame. Much of the film rides on Peter’s relationship with MJ. Peter, MJ, and Ned have become inseparable in the film thanks to the events of Homecoming, Far From Home, Infinity War, and Endgame. Nearly everything boils down to them making decisions as a trio even when Peter is out there as Spider-Man. The humor in the film doesn’t really find its footing until the villains come along and even then it starts off pretty rough (making fun of the Otto Octavius name in the trailer is a prime example).
Peter’s solution to all of these villains invading his universe from their own is pure stupidity. The desire to do what’s best for someone’s well being is there and you understand why Peter is so adamant about going in the direction that he does. However, he has the opportunity to end all of this early on with little to no repercussions other than some structural damage that he is able to repair in one night.
Peter chooses to change the fate of these villains with the best intentions and suffers for it. In a way, it’s inevitable as it factors in to and is motivation for who Peter Parker and Spider-Man are as essentially one heroic character. “It’s what they do,” as they say several times in the film. That doesn’t mean you have to swallow it as something a supposed genius and one of Marvel’s smartest minds would conjure up though.
Next to the surprises the film has in store for first time viewers, the villains are arguably the highlight of the film. Peter’s fight with Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina) on the bridge is nearly on par with the Spider-Man/Doc Ock fight on the train from Spider-Man 2. Willem Dafoe is also still Spider-Man’s greatest and most sinister adversary as Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin two decades later.
Dafoe’s one stipulation for returning to the franchise was that he would be allowed to do all of his own stunts even at 66 years old; he believes it all factors in to his performance and it shows. You feel sympathy for Norman and admire his brilliance, but he’s plagued with this gushingly nefarious and uncontrollable alternate personality. With that reverberating laugh and amazing facial expressions, Dafoe literally steals the film every time he’s on screen.
The bickering in the film results in some of the most entertaining sequences in the film. There’s at least two instances, one between all of the villains when they’re all in the same room and another sequence later that occurs right before the big fight scene between Spider-Man and the five villains that have crossed over, that are just incredible and it’s basically just dialogue.
Screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers deserve a lot of the credit. If it wasn’t for their writing then those back-and-forth dialogue exchanges between characters wouldn’t exist. But the performances from the cast also factor in to how great those sequences are. Much of the older returning cast have joked about only returning for the money, but it’s clear that there was some enjoyment of not only the script but also being able to work with such a talented group of people.
Speaking of trains, the Spider-Man/Doctor Strange battle in the mirror dimension is one of No Way Home’s visual treats. Doctor Strange and his magical origins opened up the cosmic aspect for the MCU, which has always resulted in trippy and otherworldly sequences that are tonally different and unlike anything else from the other Marvel films. Seeing Spider-Man swing around as the world is upside down while dodging kaleidoscopic skyscrapers and barely escaping gravity defying portals results in a sequence especially memorable for MCU fans.
Spider-Man: No Way Home isn’t without its flaws, but it is mostly exactly what it’s advertised to be. The film doesn’t necessarily redefine the, “With great power comes great responsibility,” aspect for Tom Holland’s Spider-Man but it without a doubt gives the MCU version of Spider-Man his version of that principle. No Way Home is a nostalgic extravaganza that exceeds expectations and is a perfect and satisfying bookend for the first three Tom Holland Spider-Man movies.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mission: Impossible III (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer movie season of 2006 is underway with the release of Mission Impossible 3 which once again stars Tome Cruise as agent Ethan Hunt. The film opens with a tense interrogation scene with an icily cold Philip Seymour Hoffman threatening to shoot a woman unless Ethan reveals the location of something called “The Rabbits Foot”.
The film then goes back in time where Ethan is busy entertaining at a party for his pending marriage where it is learned that he has put his days in the field behind him to be a training instructor as well as his pending marriage to Julia (Michelle Monaghan).
No sooner does the party get info full swing when Ethan is summed to a meeting by a phone call. During the meeting he is given a secret message and learns that one of his prize pupils, Lindsey (Keri Russell), has been captured by a known arms dealer named Owen Davian (Hoffman).
Normal policy is should an agent be captured, they are disavowed and on their own, but for this case, an exception is made and a plan is put into place to retrieve Lindsey. Despite his misgivings, Ethan is drawn back into the fray and joins the rescue team in Berlin.
What at first seems to be a text book rescue takes an unexpected twist and lands Ethan and his team afoul of the company director Brassel (Lawrence Fishburne). This sets the stage for a future operation to obtain Davian at the Vatican as it is hoped they can learn to whom he intends to deliver an item known as “The Rabbits Foot” and exactly what it is.
While things at first seem to go as planned, before long, Ethan and his team must deal with forces outside of their mission plan and are soon caught up in a situation that has grown larger than anyone could have predicted, and with dire consequences.
Sadly, despite the good setup, the film goes very wrong and very fast. One issue that arises is a plot so filled with holes and complications it makes even the most hackneyed summer movie plot seem like a Shakespearean wannabe in comparison. The film goes from one scenario to another with all sorts of new complications many of which are never fully explained, or worse yet left hanging.
Characters act a certain way only to change pace in the film without any explanation. One such scenario involves a character who helps Ethan only to later be revealed as a bad guy, yet the how, where, and why of their actions are never explained, as is one of the key plot devices that drives the film.
While I am willing to expect a certain amount of non-sequitors for a summer movie, the number that M.I. 3” tosses out is ludicrous.
Another glaring issue with the film is the action sequences. Yes, there are a few well planned sequences such as a helicopter chase and a daring battle on a bridge, but they all seem surprisingly flat and lack any real tension or drama. They just simply unfold without fully engaging the viewer.
Another issue is that Director J.J. Abrams uses very close camera angles for some of the action sequences which when combined with the shaky camera style, results in sequences that are very hard to watch due to the frantic motion. I am all for realism, but when I cannot fully understand what is going on as the camera is bouncing all over the scene, then this is a problem.
The final frustration I had with the film falls solely with Cruise himself. Yes I can separate all of the recent off camera exploits that have been well documented the past year, but what I do have an issue with is how unfit Cruise seems for the part. The man is a very good performer with a long history of box office success. Yet, his diminutive size does not make me believe him as an action star. It is hard to believe that he is capable of doing such daring acts of strength as well as dispatching all manner of imposing bad guys. In a very underwhelming finale, Hoffman seemed much more suited as a character of menace as his look and the way he carried himself was one of power. With Cruise, I kept seeing a person trying to make me believe his character was tough guy, and I simply was not buying it. The same was also true for his relationship with Julia. The utter lack of chemistry between them and the awkward and stiff love scenes did nothing to make me believe that this is a person whom Ethan is willing to risk everything for.
Hoffman fresh off his Oscar win for “Capote” does the best he can with what is at best a stock character but he like the supporting Ving Rhames are not given much to work with.
The locales of the film are amazing but sadly they alone cannot carry the film. During the approximately Two Hour and 10 minute run time, there were about 40 minutes of real entertainment for me and much of this came at the start of the film.
While it is better than the last film in the series, the issues I documented above really hamper what could have been, and should have been not only the best film in the series, but is instead another hollow Summer Film that looks flashy, just as long as you do not remove the bumper sticker to see all the dents underneath.
The film then goes back in time where Ethan is busy entertaining at a party for his pending marriage where it is learned that he has put his days in the field behind him to be a training instructor as well as his pending marriage to Julia (Michelle Monaghan).
No sooner does the party get info full swing when Ethan is summed to a meeting by a phone call. During the meeting he is given a secret message and learns that one of his prize pupils, Lindsey (Keri Russell), has been captured by a known arms dealer named Owen Davian (Hoffman).
Normal policy is should an agent be captured, they are disavowed and on their own, but for this case, an exception is made and a plan is put into place to retrieve Lindsey. Despite his misgivings, Ethan is drawn back into the fray and joins the rescue team in Berlin.
What at first seems to be a text book rescue takes an unexpected twist and lands Ethan and his team afoul of the company director Brassel (Lawrence Fishburne). This sets the stage for a future operation to obtain Davian at the Vatican as it is hoped they can learn to whom he intends to deliver an item known as “The Rabbits Foot” and exactly what it is.
While things at first seem to go as planned, before long, Ethan and his team must deal with forces outside of their mission plan and are soon caught up in a situation that has grown larger than anyone could have predicted, and with dire consequences.
Sadly, despite the good setup, the film goes very wrong and very fast. One issue that arises is a plot so filled with holes and complications it makes even the most hackneyed summer movie plot seem like a Shakespearean wannabe in comparison. The film goes from one scenario to another with all sorts of new complications many of which are never fully explained, or worse yet left hanging.
Characters act a certain way only to change pace in the film without any explanation. One such scenario involves a character who helps Ethan only to later be revealed as a bad guy, yet the how, where, and why of their actions are never explained, as is one of the key plot devices that drives the film.
While I am willing to expect a certain amount of non-sequitors for a summer movie, the number that M.I. 3” tosses out is ludicrous.
Another glaring issue with the film is the action sequences. Yes, there are a few well planned sequences such as a helicopter chase and a daring battle on a bridge, but they all seem surprisingly flat and lack any real tension or drama. They just simply unfold without fully engaging the viewer.
Another issue is that Director J.J. Abrams uses very close camera angles for some of the action sequences which when combined with the shaky camera style, results in sequences that are very hard to watch due to the frantic motion. I am all for realism, but when I cannot fully understand what is going on as the camera is bouncing all over the scene, then this is a problem.
The final frustration I had with the film falls solely with Cruise himself. Yes I can separate all of the recent off camera exploits that have been well documented the past year, but what I do have an issue with is how unfit Cruise seems for the part. The man is a very good performer with a long history of box office success. Yet, his diminutive size does not make me believe him as an action star. It is hard to believe that he is capable of doing such daring acts of strength as well as dispatching all manner of imposing bad guys. In a very underwhelming finale, Hoffman seemed much more suited as a character of menace as his look and the way he carried himself was one of power. With Cruise, I kept seeing a person trying to make me believe his character was tough guy, and I simply was not buying it. The same was also true for his relationship with Julia. The utter lack of chemistry between them and the awkward and stiff love scenes did nothing to make me believe that this is a person whom Ethan is willing to risk everything for.
Hoffman fresh off his Oscar win for “Capote” does the best he can with what is at best a stock character but he like the supporting Ving Rhames are not given much to work with.
The locales of the film are amazing but sadly they alone cannot carry the film. During the approximately Two Hour and 10 minute run time, there were about 40 minutes of real entertainment for me and much of this came at the start of the film.
While it is better than the last film in the series, the issues I documented above really hamper what could have been, and should have been not only the best film in the series, but is instead another hollow Summer Film that looks flashy, just as long as you do not remove the bumper sticker to see all the dents underneath.
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Apr 20, 2019
CGI is amazing (1 more)
The Perfect Mix of Morbid Humour and Gore
A Masterpiece of the Weird and Fantastical
This is going to be a long one, I'm going to review each episode as they aren't linked or related in any way, but just know, they are all gorgeous works of art and you should totally go watch the whole thing ?.
Beyond the Aquila Rift - CGI was beautiful from the moment it started, I was like 'shiiiit this series is going to be everything I love'. This one is about a crew making a delivery in space, however nothing quite goes to plan. For me, it had a very 'Mass Effect' feel with the FTL travel. I was not expecting a full out sex scene in the first 6 minutes but then again the episodes are on average only 16 minutes long. It was rauncy yet somehow, still quite tasteful, but as with most animated stuff there was an excessive amount of topless boob shots. I won't spoil it, but it ended up as a horrific mind fuck that left a shiver down my spine ?.
Secret War - Again, CGI was epic and the story was the perfect mix of unsettling, gory, and tragic. It follows a platoon of Red Army soldiers who are hunting down mysterious 'monsters'. There's blood, there's guts, a guy has an arm off at one point - what more could you ask for?
Sonnie's Edge - Immediately feels hellishly grunge and rave. I absolutely adored the blacklight effects and a strong female styling, the fight is gorgeous, the monsters have almost a Kaju feel which really made me happy as I love Pacific Rim. Of course this epicness is immediately ruined by a sloppy scene (I won't spoil it) which cemented the fact in my mind this was written by a man (I checked later and found I was correct), it does save itself with a fantastic twist at the end though so it was still an amazing short.
Sucker of Souls - This had a great grungy cartooning that felt half Kill Bill, half 2003 TMNT. It ended up being a real bad day for an archaeological expedition. Gore injected with humour is always a favourite of mine and this ticked all those boxes, including a wisecracking explosives expert (looking at you Gary!) If we've learnt anything from Indiana Jones and Rick O'Connell it's, don't fuck with tombs. This time was no different.
Three Robots - There's something just so fucking fantastic about robots going on holiday and speculating about 'human' stuff. It's just the perfect injection of morbid humour and I love it. The twist at the end had me laughing harder than I had any right to ?.
Ice Age - I haven't seen Topher Grace since That 70's Show so I was like 'heeeey cool'. This was the first one that wasn't soley animation so that was really cool. They find a civilization in their freezer - yes, you read that right, their freezer - and the story is awesome ?. It's a neat reflection on humans and our place in the world.
The Witness - Set in a brightly coloured city the animation here feels very Borderlands-y, which is super cool because I fricking love that game ?. There's murder, full frontal nudity, erotic dancing, and an ending that will tear your head right off. Pretty neat all in all.
Suits - Great Googamooga, this is my absolutely favourite so far, a perfectly normal looking farm, complete with adorable hick accents, discovers a breach in their fence. This isn't just any breach, this is an alien style swarm complete with Mech Warrior suits and a woman named Mel, who I'm convinced is Tank Girl as an old lady. 17 minutes of utter badassery you do not want to miss. Utterly LOVED it, and would 10/10 watch this as its own series.
When the Yogurt Took Over - Ok so the name - I was like 'should I take this seriously? Oooor' ?. Weirdly serious - yet hysterical. A five minute journey into what happened when Yogurt became sentient. You will not be disaappointed ?.
Good Hunting - With animation that reminds me of The Last Airbender, it's a story of magic, friendship, and the industrial age. A beautiful and tragic story, with horrific overtones of what greed and 'progress' can do.
The Dump - The animation this reminds me of would be sorta like, if the people at Pixar got high with Tim Burton. There was one random thing - I found Pearly's dick swing in the wind much funnier than any sane person probably would ?. A great story about man's best friend and let me tell ya, everyone needs an Otto ❤.
Shape-Shifter - There's something so deeply interesting about putting the supernatural into regular life. Two men, who are not human, in the US marines. Insanely intense story for under 15 minutes. Gorgeous CGI work too.
Helping Hand - This had a great "Gravity" feel to it, when everything goes wrong you just keep going, give a little and then a little more and you achieve the impossible. Breathtaking space visuals is just an added bonus ?.
Fish Night - Telltale style animation, depicts a story of a father and son on the road. The car breaks down and something both magical and tragic happens. The ending left me reeling ?.
Lucky 13 - The CGI in this one was so good it took me half the time to figure out that it wasn't real. Lucky 13 was to Cutter like the Normandy was to Joker. Just - the best goddamn ship ❤.
Zima Blues - Animated in a style similiar to Archer, this was an interesting piece about art and how it effects us, we search for meaning through it sometimes it's about appreciating the little things ❤.
Blindspot - 90's animation and a rad story about robots. This is my second favourite after Suits, would 10/10 watch as its own movie ?.
Alternate Histories - Did not stop laughing the entire time. Utter gold. I will recommend one thing - pause it at the blue screen bit, you won't be disappointed ?.
The only thing I'm sad about is there wasn't more of this to watch, it was incredible ?.
Beyond the Aquila Rift - CGI was beautiful from the moment it started, I was like 'shiiiit this series is going to be everything I love'. This one is about a crew making a delivery in space, however nothing quite goes to plan. For me, it had a very 'Mass Effect' feel with the FTL travel. I was not expecting a full out sex scene in the first 6 minutes but then again the episodes are on average only 16 minutes long. It was rauncy yet somehow, still quite tasteful, but as with most animated stuff there was an excessive amount of topless boob shots. I won't spoil it, but it ended up as a horrific mind fuck that left a shiver down my spine ?.
Secret War - Again, CGI was epic and the story was the perfect mix of unsettling, gory, and tragic. It follows a platoon of Red Army soldiers who are hunting down mysterious 'monsters'. There's blood, there's guts, a guy has an arm off at one point - what more could you ask for?
Sonnie's Edge - Immediately feels hellishly grunge and rave. I absolutely adored the blacklight effects and a strong female styling, the fight is gorgeous, the monsters have almost a Kaju feel which really made me happy as I love Pacific Rim. Of course this epicness is immediately ruined by a sloppy scene (I won't spoil it) which cemented the fact in my mind this was written by a man (I checked later and found I was correct), it does save itself with a fantastic twist at the end though so it was still an amazing short.
Sucker of Souls - This had a great grungy cartooning that felt half Kill Bill, half 2003 TMNT. It ended up being a real bad day for an archaeological expedition. Gore injected with humour is always a favourite of mine and this ticked all those boxes, including a wisecracking explosives expert (looking at you Gary!) If we've learnt anything from Indiana Jones and Rick O'Connell it's, don't fuck with tombs. This time was no different.
Three Robots - There's something just so fucking fantastic about robots going on holiday and speculating about 'human' stuff. It's just the perfect injection of morbid humour and I love it. The twist at the end had me laughing harder than I had any right to ?.
Ice Age - I haven't seen Topher Grace since That 70's Show so I was like 'heeeey cool'. This was the first one that wasn't soley animation so that was really cool. They find a civilization in their freezer - yes, you read that right, their freezer - and the story is awesome ?. It's a neat reflection on humans and our place in the world.
The Witness - Set in a brightly coloured city the animation here feels very Borderlands-y, which is super cool because I fricking love that game ?. There's murder, full frontal nudity, erotic dancing, and an ending that will tear your head right off. Pretty neat all in all.
Suits - Great Googamooga, this is my absolutely favourite so far, a perfectly normal looking farm, complete with adorable hick accents, discovers a breach in their fence. This isn't just any breach, this is an alien style swarm complete with Mech Warrior suits and a woman named Mel, who I'm convinced is Tank Girl as an old lady. 17 minutes of utter badassery you do not want to miss. Utterly LOVED it, and would 10/10 watch this as its own series.
When the Yogurt Took Over - Ok so the name - I was like 'should I take this seriously? Oooor' ?. Weirdly serious - yet hysterical. A five minute journey into what happened when Yogurt became sentient. You will not be disaappointed ?.
Good Hunting - With animation that reminds me of The Last Airbender, it's a story of magic, friendship, and the industrial age. A beautiful and tragic story, with horrific overtones of what greed and 'progress' can do.
The Dump - The animation this reminds me of would be sorta like, if the people at Pixar got high with Tim Burton. There was one random thing - I found Pearly's dick swing in the wind much funnier than any sane person probably would ?. A great story about man's best friend and let me tell ya, everyone needs an Otto ❤.
Shape-Shifter - There's something so deeply interesting about putting the supernatural into regular life. Two men, who are not human, in the US marines. Insanely intense story for under 15 minutes. Gorgeous CGI work too.
Helping Hand - This had a great "Gravity" feel to it, when everything goes wrong you just keep going, give a little and then a little more and you achieve the impossible. Breathtaking space visuals is just an added bonus ?.
Fish Night - Telltale style animation, depicts a story of a father and son on the road. The car breaks down and something both magical and tragic happens. The ending left me reeling ?.
Lucky 13 - The CGI in this one was so good it took me half the time to figure out that it wasn't real. Lucky 13 was to Cutter like the Normandy was to Joker. Just - the best goddamn ship ❤.
Zima Blues - Animated in a style similiar to Archer, this was an interesting piece about art and how it effects us, we search for meaning through it sometimes it's about appreciating the little things ❤.
Blindspot - 90's animation and a rad story about robots. This is my second favourite after Suits, would 10/10 watch as its own movie ?.
Alternate Histories - Did not stop laughing the entire time. Utter gold. I will recommend one thing - pause it at the blue screen bit, you won't be disappointed ?.
The only thing I'm sad about is there wasn't more of this to watch, it was incredible ?.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Bloodborne in Video Games
Aug 13, 2018
Incredible atmosphere (5 more)
Great variety of enemies
Beautiful art and imagery
Interesting Lore (optional)
Plenty of different ways to play
Great combat mechanics
Can be difficult (1 more)
Not as easy and some people make it look
Challenging and Satisfying
Contains spoilers, click to show
Bloodborne is part of the famous series of games such as Demon Souls and Dark Souls, which if you know those previous games, you'll know that they are infamous for their difficulty, even spawning an entire meme phrase that simply says "git gud".
Bloodborne however, stands aside from the souls series because it's combat mechanics are faster and each enemy requires the player to evolve their skills and tactics in order to progress. The first major difference in Bloodborne that might throw previous souls players off, is the fact that there is no shield. Instead the Hunter wields a right handed melee weapon and in the left hand they wild a ranged weapon in place of a shield. This ranged weapon at first is primarily used not for damage, but for parry's/counter attacks.
The lack of shield helps the player evolve their combat from hiding behind a shield like in the souls games, to being more aggressive in a fight but also tactical because during your first run through of the game, you'll simply be dealing with each enemy through trial and error until you learn their attacks and learn how to defeat them. This is something that has been in every souls game and that is why these games are so rewarding.
The reason Bloodborne is my favourite is because of this speed that makes you evolve in combat. I ran into this game thinking it was like other RPG games where I could pretty much take on any beginning level enemy and even if they packed a punch I'd take out the enemy with a thin line of health left, only to use a few health potions and repeat. But Bloodborne? Good God you can't rush this game!
Every enemy has their own attack system that varies. Some Yarnhamites are more vicious that other, and some are more defensive and cautious. There are also enemies that are deceptive. If you were to come across a large, fat troll in a fantasy world, you'd expect them to be rather slow, especially when swinging a weapon. You'd only expect the force and weight of the weapon to give speed to a swing. But the large troll creatures in Bloodborne are deceptively fast and even if you keep some distance between you, they can leap really quickly and instantly pummel you with a cinder block.
But I'm not going to reveal too much about enemies because it's easier and more fun to test out the game for yourself.
Boss fights are the main factor for the infamous difficulty of the souls series and Bloodborne is no stranger to this element either. There are Two bosses in the beginning of the game. One is optional but I would highly recommend facing it. The other boss is your first taste (if you didn't kill the optional boss first) of the challenges you'll face. Both bosses help prepare for later boss fights because of their different combat styles.
The first (optional) boss is the Cleric Beast on the bridge in the beginning level, and it is intimidating as fuck for a beginner of the souls series. If you haven't watched or played a souls game before and you go into Bloodborne (or any of them) with no knowledge of the scale of bosses, then they are intimidating in comparison to your measly character size. However once you learn this boss, and face later bosses, you'll realize that this boss is one of the easiest to face.
The next boss and the main boss of the beginning level, who is not optional as defeating him let's you progress through the story, is Father Gascoigne, another Hunter in the world of Bloodborne and the first of many you'll come across but facing this hunter is by far one of the most painstakingly challenging beginning fights to a game I've ever had to face. In my first run through I died to him so so soooo many times and sometimes it was simply cos he was on low health and I got cocky and fucked up. However defeating this boss, and any boss in this game, really feels like an achievement.
I've realised iv made this review hella long but that's because Bloodborne cannot be easily reviewed in just a few words but I'll do my best to do a quick overall conclusion as to why this is my favourite game:
The level design isn't flawless but it is incredible and the atmosphere created through sound design and soundtrack make this game incredibly in depth and really creepy which I love because even after a few play through I still get creeped out and even jump at some of the jumpscares that I forget about!
The weapons of this game are all well designed aesthetically and though I know certain ones I never use, they are all useable depending on player preference and style of play. There's so much to choose from and learn and every item in this game has a description that teaches the player more about the Lore of the world but that is of course optional and isn't required necessarily to understand the games main quest plot.
This game also requires exploration because the path the player needs to take isn't set out for them which makes the game less linear meaning that you can play this game differently every time you play it. It also might mean that you'll need to look up the paths you need to take online or in a guide in order to just get through the game and complete it. Otherwise it could take you hours, maybe days to figure out where you need to go.
The combat mechanics of Bloodborne are some of the best I've ever seen and played with and that's why it stands out to me above the other souls games.
The boss fights are intense and each new boss helps the player to adapt and evolve their combat skills and tactics in order to overcome the enemy.
The world is very heavily Lovecraftian and therefore the Lore is incredible but also optional. Also, there are easier ways to fight this games enemies including bosses, so if you're struggling, then Google it and there will be hundreds of players in the same boat as you, and in my opinion there's no wrong way to play games like this. If it remains fun and let's me complete the storyline, such as summoning AI for boss battles in offline mode. Then play however you want to because it's you playing the game, not some internet troll who says you're shit and/or cheating the game. If it's possible to do in game, it's part of the game...deal with it!
There are faults such as minor framerate glitches, and glitches with the ragdoll bodies of defeated enemies falling through the environment. There are also some elements that are part of the game such as windows for visceral attacks and hitboxes which sometimes feel like bullshit, but this also helps you evolve so....pros and cons.
My final comment is this;
The best way to learn about this game and enjoy it, is to play it for yourself. It's hard to put into words (even this amount of words in this review) just how incredible this game looks and feels. So if you have a Playstation 4 then grab yourself a copy of Bloodborne and enjoy!
Fear the Old blood!
Bloodborne however, stands aside from the souls series because it's combat mechanics are faster and each enemy requires the player to evolve their skills and tactics in order to progress. The first major difference in Bloodborne that might throw previous souls players off, is the fact that there is no shield. Instead the Hunter wields a right handed melee weapon and in the left hand they wild a ranged weapon in place of a shield. This ranged weapon at first is primarily used not for damage, but for parry's/counter attacks.
The lack of shield helps the player evolve their combat from hiding behind a shield like in the souls games, to being more aggressive in a fight but also tactical because during your first run through of the game, you'll simply be dealing with each enemy through trial and error until you learn their attacks and learn how to defeat them. This is something that has been in every souls game and that is why these games are so rewarding.
The reason Bloodborne is my favourite is because of this speed that makes you evolve in combat. I ran into this game thinking it was like other RPG games where I could pretty much take on any beginning level enemy and even if they packed a punch I'd take out the enemy with a thin line of health left, only to use a few health potions and repeat. But Bloodborne? Good God you can't rush this game!
Every enemy has their own attack system that varies. Some Yarnhamites are more vicious that other, and some are more defensive and cautious. There are also enemies that are deceptive. If you were to come across a large, fat troll in a fantasy world, you'd expect them to be rather slow, especially when swinging a weapon. You'd only expect the force and weight of the weapon to give speed to a swing. But the large troll creatures in Bloodborne are deceptively fast and even if you keep some distance between you, they can leap really quickly and instantly pummel you with a cinder block.
But I'm not going to reveal too much about enemies because it's easier and more fun to test out the game for yourself.
Boss fights are the main factor for the infamous difficulty of the souls series and Bloodborne is no stranger to this element either. There are Two bosses in the beginning of the game. One is optional but I would highly recommend facing it. The other boss is your first taste (if you didn't kill the optional boss first) of the challenges you'll face. Both bosses help prepare for later boss fights because of their different combat styles.
The first (optional) boss is the Cleric Beast on the bridge in the beginning level, and it is intimidating as fuck for a beginner of the souls series. If you haven't watched or played a souls game before and you go into Bloodborne (or any of them) with no knowledge of the scale of bosses, then they are intimidating in comparison to your measly character size. However once you learn this boss, and face later bosses, you'll realize that this boss is one of the easiest to face.
The next boss and the main boss of the beginning level, who is not optional as defeating him let's you progress through the story, is Father Gascoigne, another Hunter in the world of Bloodborne and the first of many you'll come across but facing this hunter is by far one of the most painstakingly challenging beginning fights to a game I've ever had to face. In my first run through I died to him so so soooo many times and sometimes it was simply cos he was on low health and I got cocky and fucked up. However defeating this boss, and any boss in this game, really feels like an achievement.
I've realised iv made this review hella long but that's because Bloodborne cannot be easily reviewed in just a few words but I'll do my best to do a quick overall conclusion as to why this is my favourite game:
The level design isn't flawless but it is incredible and the atmosphere created through sound design and soundtrack make this game incredibly in depth and really creepy which I love because even after a few play through I still get creeped out and even jump at some of the jumpscares that I forget about!
The weapons of this game are all well designed aesthetically and though I know certain ones I never use, they are all useable depending on player preference and style of play. There's so much to choose from and learn and every item in this game has a description that teaches the player more about the Lore of the world but that is of course optional and isn't required necessarily to understand the games main quest plot.
This game also requires exploration because the path the player needs to take isn't set out for them which makes the game less linear meaning that you can play this game differently every time you play it. It also might mean that you'll need to look up the paths you need to take online or in a guide in order to just get through the game and complete it. Otherwise it could take you hours, maybe days to figure out where you need to go.
The combat mechanics of Bloodborne are some of the best I've ever seen and played with and that's why it stands out to me above the other souls games.
The boss fights are intense and each new boss helps the player to adapt and evolve their combat skills and tactics in order to overcome the enemy.
The world is very heavily Lovecraftian and therefore the Lore is incredible but also optional. Also, there are easier ways to fight this games enemies including bosses, so if you're struggling, then Google it and there will be hundreds of players in the same boat as you, and in my opinion there's no wrong way to play games like this. If it remains fun and let's me complete the storyline, such as summoning AI for boss battles in offline mode. Then play however you want to because it's you playing the game, not some internet troll who says you're shit and/or cheating the game. If it's possible to do in game, it's part of the game...deal with it!
There are faults such as minor framerate glitches, and glitches with the ragdoll bodies of defeated enemies falling through the environment. There are also some elements that are part of the game such as windows for visceral attacks and hitboxes which sometimes feel like bullshit, but this also helps you evolve so....pros and cons.
My final comment is this;
The best way to learn about this game and enjoy it, is to play it for yourself. It's hard to put into words (even this amount of words in this review) just how incredible this game looks and feels. So if you have a Playstation 4 then grab yourself a copy of Bloodborne and enjoy!
Fear the Old blood!