Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Readers should not be fooled by the title The Geek Who Came From The Cold: Surviving The Post-USSR Era On A Hollywood Diet by Leon Kaminsky has nothing to do with food or dieting at all. The “Hollywood Diet” mentioned in the title is movies, mainly those from the US. A little bit of knowledge about Russia and their policies would be helpful when reading this book but is not required.
Leon is a young boy growing up in Russia at the end of the 1900s. He has a nervous problem (possibly anxiety) and has a hard time at school and with other people in general. Leon quickly falls in love with movies, specifically those from Hollywood after seeing them for the first time. Like so many other people who are not exactly social for one reason or another, he trades social interaction for watching films. His love for movies over the years borders on the edge of obsession as he knows not only actors and directors but also the Russian’s who voice over the tapes to translate them. His daily and weekly schedule revolves around what movies are being played on TV or at the theaters.
He takes readers through the difficulty of obtaining some of the popular movies that can be found just about anywhere here in the United States. This difficulty is not only because of how much Russia censored movies from just about anywhere but because the titles are often changed as well. Leon shares his excitement and the challenges he faced to get his first VCR play and to transport his VHS collection when his family moved. He even talks about when owning a VCR was illegal in Russia and when people would give anything to have one, including offering to trade a boat for a VCR.
What I liked best was that the informative quality of the book was wonderful and the author clearly did his research (I even wondered at times if the book was based on the author’s own childhood). I appreciated the human qualities of the book, such as the struggles Leon faces at school. New facts about Russia was presented to the readers in a way that prevented anything from feeling too overly informative. What I did not like was the fact that the book ends fairly abruptly. I would have liked to see at least one chapter about after the family’s move to Germany. There were also multiple sections where it would begin on one topic and end on another, seemingly unrelated topic.
Movie fans will enjoy this book but it is recommended that they be somewhat familiar with movies from the 1980s (I think was the time period of most movies mentioned in the book, I myself am far from a movie buff at all) and newer. High school students may not be able to fully appreciate the cinematic history in this book and may feel more like a history book to them. It should also be noted as VHS tapes are already a thing of the past (I am holding on to a few to show my children in the future) upcoming generations may not know what the book is talking about without asking their parents or google. Finally, I give this book a rating of 3 out of 4. This book is very informative about a topic not many people are probably aware of. Sadly this gives it a very narrow target audience. The way the book is written makes it feel like it is an autobiography about a movie lover growing up where movies are largely controlled. The plot of the book is frequently lost through during all the movie talk.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Leon is a young boy growing up in Russia at the end of the 1900s. He has a nervous problem (possibly anxiety) and has a hard time at school and with other people in general. Leon quickly falls in love with movies, specifically those from Hollywood after seeing them for the first time. Like so many other people who are not exactly social for one reason or another, he trades social interaction for watching films. His love for movies over the years borders on the edge of obsession as he knows not only actors and directors but also the Russian’s who voice over the tapes to translate them. His daily and weekly schedule revolves around what movies are being played on TV or at the theaters.
He takes readers through the difficulty of obtaining some of the popular movies that can be found just about anywhere here in the United States. This difficulty is not only because of how much Russia censored movies from just about anywhere but because the titles are often changed as well. Leon shares his excitement and the challenges he faced to get his first VCR play and to transport his VHS collection when his family moved. He even talks about when owning a VCR was illegal in Russia and when people would give anything to have one, including offering to trade a boat for a VCR.
What I liked best was that the informative quality of the book was wonderful and the author clearly did his research (I even wondered at times if the book was based on the author’s own childhood). I appreciated the human qualities of the book, such as the struggles Leon faces at school. New facts about Russia was presented to the readers in a way that prevented anything from feeling too overly informative. What I did not like was the fact that the book ends fairly abruptly. I would have liked to see at least one chapter about after the family’s move to Germany. There were also multiple sections where it would begin on one topic and end on another, seemingly unrelated topic.
Movie fans will enjoy this book but it is recommended that they be somewhat familiar with movies from the 1980s (I think was the time period of most movies mentioned in the book, I myself am far from a movie buff at all) and newer. High school students may not be able to fully appreciate the cinematic history in this book and may feel more like a history book to them. It should also be noted as VHS tapes are already a thing of the past (I am holding on to a few to show my children in the future) upcoming generations may not know what the book is talking about without asking their parents or google. Finally, I give this book a rating of 3 out of 4. This book is very informative about a topic not many people are probably aware of. Sadly this gives it a very narrow target audience. The way the book is written makes it feel like it is an autobiography about a movie lover growing up where movies are largely controlled. The plot of the book is frequently lost through during all the movie talk.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
! My Talking Lady Dog - Virtual Pet
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
Adopt My Talking Lady Dog, an adorable VIRTUAL PET for girls and boys, and have fun playing with...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
The premise of Jojo Rabbit is a bold one, and something that could have very easily been executed terribly on-screen.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Buddies, Bullies, and Baseball
6.0
Rate It
Book
When Bullies Act Out, It’s Time for Buddies and Baseball A cloud hangs over Jack as he begins...
FF
FreshMenu: Food Ordering App
Food & Drink
App
Craving for a meal without the hassles of cooking or stepping out? The FreshMenu food delivery app...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.