Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Queen & Slim (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Usually when my local cinema chain hosts a secret screening, it's for a lesser known film that they're hoping to drum up interest and support for. They do occasionally show something a bit more mainstream though (the last one I went to was for an advance showing of Le Mans '66) and a lot of people in the run up to last nights secret screening were actually expecting it to be Little Women. It turned out to be Queen & Slim, a film that I knew very little about, and probably wouldn't have ventured to see at the cinema if I'm honest. Which is obviously the whole idea behind the secret screenings and why they urge you on social media beforehand to stick with it when you discover what it is!
Queen (Jodie Turner-Smith) and Slim (Daniel Kaluuya) are at a diner for their first Tinder date and they seem to be getting along, although a second date isn't exactly a definite just yet. As they drive home afterwards, they are pulled over by a white cop for driving erratically (Slim was quickly reaching to grab his phone back from Queen at the time) and for failure to execute a turn signal. There are clearly some racial motives behind the actions of the police officer though, not helped by Slim's impatience as the officer checks through the contents of his car, and the questioning coming from Queen, who works as a defense attorney and knows their rights. Following a heated exchange, a shot is fired and Queen is left with a flesh wound to her leg. An angered Slim then brawls with the cop and, in what is clearly self defense, shoots and kills the officer. Fearing what will happen to them next and the likelihood of further injustice, they decide to go on the run.
What follows is around 40 minutes of pretty tense drama, unexpectedly peppered with some moments of real humour when as the pair find themselves getting into even more difficult situations. As dash-cam footage from the vehicle of the deceased police officer goes viral, there's a real sense of urgency and intensity to their predicament, making for a really intense and gripping roller-coaster of a ride. They make it to New Orleans, and a brief stopover at the home of Queen's Uncle Earl (Bokeem Woodbine), and it's around this point in the movie that momentum gets lost somewhat, never really recovering until the finale.
Written by Lena Waithe (Master of None and Ready Player One), Queen & Slim is clearly a relevant and important movie, boasting a great look and style from director Melina Matsoukas. Daniel Kaluuya is a great choice for Slim too, no stranger to portraying strong emotions with his eyes and facial expressions, as he did so perfectly in his iconic Get Out role. While I wasn't so keen on Jodie Turner-Smith, the pair did work well together, despite making some questionable character choices at times. When a photo of the pair goes viral, they become a kind of modern day Bonnie & Clyde, hailed as heroes and legends by many as they make their way down towards Florida, where they hope to be able catch a flight to freedom in Cuba. Along the way, their relationship develops and they occasionally find support among the black community in each town they stop at.
But, following that stopover in New Orleans, Queen & Slim becomes much more of a slow meander towards the finish line, and it's a real noticeable tonal shift and change of pacing from those first 40 minutes or so. People in the cinema became fidgety (including me), some gave up on the movie completely and left the cinema (I've done that before, vowed never to do it again though) and all I could think about when they get help from some old friends of Queen's Uncle was "Is that Needles, from Back to the Future?" (it was).
All of this shouldn't detract from how important this movie is though, highlighting racial injustice and delving into real issues unashamedly. While Queen & Slim didn't quite work for me overall, it is certainly a story which deserves to be told and seen by many, getting people talking and hopefully instigating some real change. I'm glad I had the chance to see it, and glad I stuck with it right until the end.
Queen (Jodie Turner-Smith) and Slim (Daniel Kaluuya) are at a diner for their first Tinder date and they seem to be getting along, although a second date isn't exactly a definite just yet. As they drive home afterwards, they are pulled over by a white cop for driving erratically (Slim was quickly reaching to grab his phone back from Queen at the time) and for failure to execute a turn signal. There are clearly some racial motives behind the actions of the police officer though, not helped by Slim's impatience as the officer checks through the contents of his car, and the questioning coming from Queen, who works as a defense attorney and knows their rights. Following a heated exchange, a shot is fired and Queen is left with a flesh wound to her leg. An angered Slim then brawls with the cop and, in what is clearly self defense, shoots and kills the officer. Fearing what will happen to them next and the likelihood of further injustice, they decide to go on the run.
What follows is around 40 minutes of pretty tense drama, unexpectedly peppered with some moments of real humour when as the pair find themselves getting into even more difficult situations. As dash-cam footage from the vehicle of the deceased police officer goes viral, there's a real sense of urgency and intensity to their predicament, making for a really intense and gripping roller-coaster of a ride. They make it to New Orleans, and a brief stopover at the home of Queen's Uncle Earl (Bokeem Woodbine), and it's around this point in the movie that momentum gets lost somewhat, never really recovering until the finale.
Written by Lena Waithe (Master of None and Ready Player One), Queen & Slim is clearly a relevant and important movie, boasting a great look and style from director Melina Matsoukas. Daniel Kaluuya is a great choice for Slim too, no stranger to portraying strong emotions with his eyes and facial expressions, as he did so perfectly in his iconic Get Out role. While I wasn't so keen on Jodie Turner-Smith, the pair did work well together, despite making some questionable character choices at times. When a photo of the pair goes viral, they become a kind of modern day Bonnie & Clyde, hailed as heroes and legends by many as they make their way down towards Florida, where they hope to be able catch a flight to freedom in Cuba. Along the way, their relationship develops and they occasionally find support among the black community in each town they stop at.
But, following that stopover in New Orleans, Queen & Slim becomes much more of a slow meander towards the finish line, and it's a real noticeable tonal shift and change of pacing from those first 40 minutes or so. People in the cinema became fidgety (including me), some gave up on the movie completely and left the cinema (I've done that before, vowed never to do it again though) and all I could think about when they get help from some old friends of Queen's Uncle was "Is that Needles, from Back to the Future?" (it was).
All of this shouldn't detract from how important this movie is though, highlighting racial injustice and delving into real issues unashamedly. While Queen & Slim didn't quite work for me overall, it is certainly a story which deserves to be told and seen by many, getting people talking and hopefully instigating some real change. I'm glad I had the chance to see it, and glad I stuck with it right until the end.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 16, 2020 (Updated Jan 16, 2020)
Cutting satire (1 more)
Great ensemble cast
Don't be stupid, be a smarty
Taika Waititi's much discussed movie is an odd beast. Set in a small German town towards the end of the war, Jojo (Roman Griffith Davis), is a young boy indoctrinated with Nazi fervour as a member of the Hitler youth. Together with his rotund and bespectacled friend Yorki (Archie Yates), they are not likely to spread fear into the approaching Allied forces: they are a pair that would be likely to get picked last for 'sides' in a school football match.
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated I Am Not Okay With This in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Proof that Netflix can rule your life, in an OK way, I guess. Every time I have dropped in for the last two weeks, this is the show they went out of their way to push on me. I watched the trailer and thought hmm, I don’t get it… but after relentless publicity I ended up watching the entire first series within 36 hours of its release on February 26th. Which is easy enough to do, as the entire first series only lasts 2 1/2 hours, in 7 x 23 minute easy to swallow episodes. Another nice tactic for the attention deficient generation.
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Big Little Lies in Books
Mar 22, 2020
After reading (and loving) What Alice Forgot by Liane Moriarty, I had wanted to read more by her. When I finally got the opportunity, I chose Big Little Lies. Liane Moriarty did not disappoint!
Many things are happening for the parents of the children that attend Pirriwee Public school. Madeline is happy go lucky, but she isn't afraid to speak her mind. Celeste is gorgeous and seems to have the perfect life, but it's what goes on behind closed doors that make her want to run away from it all. Jane, a single mom, is younger than most of the parents and has just moved to the area. With her, she brings a very big secret. As their lives intersect, things come to a head leaving one person dead. The thing is, was it murder, self defense, suicide, or just an unfortunate accident?
The plot for Big Little Lies is easy to navigate and understand. It was easy to imagine myself as a bystander in the book whilst all the action was going on around me. Most of the characters in this book lead a privileged life, so it was nice to get a sneak peek into their lives and see that they have problems as well. The pacing was done beautifully. The chapters weren't very long, so I kept telling myself one more chapter which we all know turns into many more chapters! The prose was fantastic and flowed perfectly. I kept wanting to know more and would try to guess who the character was that died. I enjoyed the dialogue that would start off most chapters where a character was talking to someone regarding the death of a character in present day. I did predict which character would end up dead though, but I suppose that was a lucky guess. There was one big plot twist I didn't see coming, and I loved that plot twist! The book ends with no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered.
I enjoyed every character in Big Little Lies. Each and every character was well developed and interesting to learn about. Although the story follows Madeline, Celeste, and Jane, other characters are fleshed out through their narratives. I loved how Madeline wasn't afraid to tell it like it was. She just could not hold anything back, yet people still wanted to be her friend. Her loyalty to her friends was admirable, and I would love a friend like her! Her husband, Ed, was very supportive to Madeline, and it was easy to see that he loved her. Her oldest daughter, Abigail, was an interesting one. I liked reading about her and seeing how she would turn out throughout everything. (The virginity thing sure was interesting, and I would have done exactly as Madeline!) Madeline's youngest daughter Chloe was cute. She reminded me so much of a younger Madeline. Nathan, Madeline's ex-husband, and his wife Bonnie were other characters that helped flesh out Madeline. I did like Bonnie's carefree personality though. I also loved reading about Celeste, and I felt bad for her many times with what she had to endure. Sure, to others, she had it all - looks, a huge house, a very rich and good looking husband who seemed to adore her, beautiful twin boys - but her pain was obvious throughout, and I could understand her hesitation to do the right thing. Getting to read about her thought process was interesting. Perry, Celeste's husband, came across as very charismatic. It was easy to see why everyone loved him so much. I wanted good things to happen for Jane and her little boy, Ziggy. Jane's love for Ziggy oozed from the pages. The love she had for Ziggy was so sweet. Ziggy seemed like such a cute little boy, and I just wanted to hug him and never let go especially after what happens very early on in the book.
Trigger warnings for Big Little Lies include death, drinking, drunkenness, profanity, domestic violence, violence, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Big Little Lies is a delicious morsel of a book. It delves right into the lives of its characters who come to feel like close friends and family by the end of the book. I would definitely recommend Big Little Lies by Liane Moriarty to everyone aged 16+ who are in dire need of a fantastic read with a great cast of characters and a plot that sucks you right in!
Many things are happening for the parents of the children that attend Pirriwee Public school. Madeline is happy go lucky, but she isn't afraid to speak her mind. Celeste is gorgeous and seems to have the perfect life, but it's what goes on behind closed doors that make her want to run away from it all. Jane, a single mom, is younger than most of the parents and has just moved to the area. With her, she brings a very big secret. As their lives intersect, things come to a head leaving one person dead. The thing is, was it murder, self defense, suicide, or just an unfortunate accident?
The plot for Big Little Lies is easy to navigate and understand. It was easy to imagine myself as a bystander in the book whilst all the action was going on around me. Most of the characters in this book lead a privileged life, so it was nice to get a sneak peek into their lives and see that they have problems as well. The pacing was done beautifully. The chapters weren't very long, so I kept telling myself one more chapter which we all know turns into many more chapters! The prose was fantastic and flowed perfectly. I kept wanting to know more and would try to guess who the character was that died. I enjoyed the dialogue that would start off most chapters where a character was talking to someone regarding the death of a character in present day. I did predict which character would end up dead though, but I suppose that was a lucky guess. There was one big plot twist I didn't see coming, and I loved that plot twist! The book ends with no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered.
I enjoyed every character in Big Little Lies. Each and every character was well developed and interesting to learn about. Although the story follows Madeline, Celeste, and Jane, other characters are fleshed out through their narratives. I loved how Madeline wasn't afraid to tell it like it was. She just could not hold anything back, yet people still wanted to be her friend. Her loyalty to her friends was admirable, and I would love a friend like her! Her husband, Ed, was very supportive to Madeline, and it was easy to see that he loved her. Her oldest daughter, Abigail, was an interesting one. I liked reading about her and seeing how she would turn out throughout everything. (The virginity thing sure was interesting, and I would have done exactly as Madeline!) Madeline's youngest daughter Chloe was cute. She reminded me so much of a younger Madeline. Nathan, Madeline's ex-husband, and his wife Bonnie were other characters that helped flesh out Madeline. I did like Bonnie's carefree personality though. I also loved reading about Celeste, and I felt bad for her many times with what she had to endure. Sure, to others, she had it all - looks, a huge house, a very rich and good looking husband who seemed to adore her, beautiful twin boys - but her pain was obvious throughout, and I could understand her hesitation to do the right thing. Getting to read about her thought process was interesting. Perry, Celeste's husband, came across as very charismatic. It was easy to see why everyone loved him so much. I wanted good things to happen for Jane and her little boy, Ziggy. Jane's love for Ziggy oozed from the pages. The love she had for Ziggy was so sweet. Ziggy seemed like such a cute little boy, and I just wanted to hug him and never let go especially after what happens very early on in the book.
Trigger warnings for Big Little Lies include death, drinking, drunkenness, profanity, domestic violence, violence, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Big Little Lies is a delicious morsel of a book. It delves right into the lives of its characters who come to feel like close friends and family by the end of the book. I would definitely recommend Big Little Lies by Liane Moriarty to everyone aged 16+ who are in dire need of a fantastic read with a great cast of characters and a plot that sucks you right in!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
It’s been a very long time since I played the Sonic the Hedgehog video games on my brothers SEGA Megadrive. I was, and always have been, a Nintendo guy, so since then my only experience of Sonic has been when he joins forces with Mario and Co for Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. I do have good memories of his solo outings though, and he is clearly an enduring and popular character, ideally suited for a CGI/live action movie.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Lee (2222 KP) Dec 4, 2019
Sarah (7798 KP) Dec 4, 2019