Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Over a year on from this novelty being the first fully interactive film released by Netflix there is still no evidence of a similarly user controlled show out there. The streaming service had promised, after scooping a primetime Emmy for outstanding TV movie, that it was commissioning many more like it. But as of January 2020 they are nowhere to be seen.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chronicle (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Walking into the theatre to see Chronicle I was pretty excited. I had not heard much about this movie, in fact I’ll be honest here… I heard a small amount of info about two months ago and then it dropped off my radar before a trailer appeared last Sunday.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Long Bright River in Books
Apr 23, 2020
This was the first book I ever checked out from Libby. I miss my library right now, but I'm glad for that app, even if I can only put six books on hold at one time. (What is that?! Six holds; that's for amateurs.)
Kensington, a neighborhood in Philadelphia, is plagued by drug use, especially heroin. It's where sisters Kacey and Mickey grew up. The girls lost their mother at a young age and were raised by their grandmother, Gee, who provided shelter and not much else. Now, Mickey is determined to raise her son Thomas differently. With love and kindness and a feeling of safety. Mickey is a police officer, so she's more than familiar with the streets of Kensington. At the same time, Kensington is struck with a series of murders, Kacey disappears. Mickey and Kacey haven't had much contact in years, since her sister became stuck in the tangle of addiction, but she's still worried. Even more so since those being murdered are young women, no doubt drug and sex workers. Found strangled on the streets. As Mickey starts looking into the murders, she gets caught up in a twisted web of lies and deceit--some of it related to her missing sister--and soon it may be too late to save either Mickey or Kacey.
The first time I found my sister dead, she was sixteen. It was the summer of 2002. Forty-eight hours earlier, on a Friday afternoon, she’d left school with her friends, telling me she’d be back by evening. She wasn’t.
This isn't a fun book to read, so if you're looking for a feel-good read right now, this isn't it. But it's a well-written, extremely powerful look at addiction. While it focuses on the story of the murdered girls, it's also an in-depth character study, taking us into Mickey's history with her sister and how their past has formed their present. Told in a then and now format, we learn about the sisters, and we get a harrowing and detailed look at the effect of addiction, not just on Kacey, but on an entire town. It's depressing, it's real, and it's wonderfully done.
Kacey told me that time spent in addiction feels looped. Each morning brings with it the possibility of change, each evening the shame of failure.
This is not really a fast-moving book, but it does have twists and turns, many of them surprising. There's plenty to keep you guessing, as we try to figure out what is happening to the women on the streets in Kensington. In turn, we have to figure out Kacey and Mickey's past and how it's brought us to where we are today. Characters are sparse, but incredibly well-created, with my favorite, beyond the sisters, being Mickey's landlord, Mrs. Mahon, a formidable woman in her own right. And Mickey's sweet, wise young son Thomas.
While Kacey is clearly the damaged one on paper, as an addict, often living on the streets, we see Mickey isn't always much better. She's had a tough time, and it's hard for her to trust anyone. Both she and Kacey are astounding characters, who stand out in this powerful novel about addiction, police abuse, and the love of a mother. This isn't always an easy read, but I'm glad I picked it up. It will stick with me for some time.
Kensington, a neighborhood in Philadelphia, is plagued by drug use, especially heroin. It's where sisters Kacey and Mickey grew up. The girls lost their mother at a young age and were raised by their grandmother, Gee, who provided shelter and not much else. Now, Mickey is determined to raise her son Thomas differently. With love and kindness and a feeling of safety. Mickey is a police officer, so she's more than familiar with the streets of Kensington. At the same time, Kensington is struck with a series of murders, Kacey disappears. Mickey and Kacey haven't had much contact in years, since her sister became stuck in the tangle of addiction, but she's still worried. Even more so since those being murdered are young women, no doubt drug and sex workers. Found strangled on the streets. As Mickey starts looking into the murders, she gets caught up in a twisted web of lies and deceit--some of it related to her missing sister--and soon it may be too late to save either Mickey or Kacey.
The first time I found my sister dead, she was sixteen. It was the summer of 2002. Forty-eight hours earlier, on a Friday afternoon, she’d left school with her friends, telling me she’d be back by evening. She wasn’t.
This isn't a fun book to read, so if you're looking for a feel-good read right now, this isn't it. But it's a well-written, extremely powerful look at addiction. While it focuses on the story of the murdered girls, it's also an in-depth character study, taking us into Mickey's history with her sister and how their past has formed their present. Told in a then and now format, we learn about the sisters, and we get a harrowing and detailed look at the effect of addiction, not just on Kacey, but on an entire town. It's depressing, it's real, and it's wonderfully done.
Kacey told me that time spent in addiction feels looped. Each morning brings with it the possibility of change, each evening the shame of failure.
This is not really a fast-moving book, but it does have twists and turns, many of them surprising. There's plenty to keep you guessing, as we try to figure out what is happening to the women on the streets in Kensington. In turn, we have to figure out Kacey and Mickey's past and how it's brought us to where we are today. Characters are sparse, but incredibly well-created, with my favorite, beyond the sisters, being Mickey's landlord, Mrs. Mahon, a formidable woman in her own right. And Mickey's sweet, wise young son Thomas.
While Kacey is clearly the damaged one on paper, as an addict, often living on the streets, we see Mickey isn't always much better. She's had a tough time, and it's hard for her to trust anyone. Both she and Kacey are astounding characters, who stand out in this powerful novel about addiction, police abuse, and the love of a mother. This isn't always an easy read, but I'm glad I picked it up. It will stick with me for some time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Mean Girls (2004) in Movies
Nov 22, 2020
Entertaining
Film #3 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Mean Girls
The third film on my 100 Movies Bucket List is Mean Girls, a film I’ve seen but never had any strong emotion for. Mean Girls stars Lindsay Lohan as Cady, who after living and being homeschooled in Africa for most of her life, must now enter the terrifying world of an American high school. Here she meets Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) who clue her into high school hierarchy, including introducing her to the Plastics: Regina (Rachel McAdams), Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and Gretchen (Lacey Chabert).
Mean Girls is a teenage movie that is unlike many others – instead of being dumb and crude, it’s surprisingly smart and humorous. From the opening scenes, it’s obvious that this is intelligent. It’s full of subtle jokes and remarks and some absolutely superb one liners, and these are all down to Tina Fey who has written an excellent script. And in the process appears to have some of the best lines as teacher Mrs Norbury, but do you blame her? Mean Girls manages to portray the high school hierarchy and social interactions perfectly. Whilst is is obviously catering more to American high schoolers, I doubt there are many that would watch this and not see something that they personally experienced at high school. It’s almost poking fun at the high school experience but in such a smart and enjoyable way. There are moments and lines in this that are almost verging on inappropriate, and likely wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s society, but even though this was made in 2004 I don’t doubt that this impropriety is still reflective of modern day high schools.
The acting on offer here is superb. Lindsay Lohan is entirely believable as Cady and this is hugely important considering the message Mean Girls is portraying. This film is entirely about the realisation that you should be happy about you are, and that putting other people down will never achieve anything. Getting this message across is done very well, in a funny yet almost heartwarming manner although admittedly it is all rather obvious. Although at least this tries to avoid as many teenage film clichés as possible, which makes for a refreshing change.
My problem with Mean Girls is the whole bitchiness of it all that underpins the second act. I know “mean” girls were to be expected, but by the end I found myself getting very irritable with how horrible these girls were and the constant sniping at each other. This may stem from my own sometimes unpleasant experiences at high school, but teenage girls stabbing each other in the backs gets very old very quickly. Fortunately the ending does at least relieve some of the meanness and provide a surprisingly heartwarming and uplifting resolution, but I’m afraid some of the damage remains. And I must admit that seeing a smart girl play dumb and risk failing for a boy really makes my blood boil, and yes I do know it’s only a film.
Overall Mean Girls is a well done teenage film which stands out mostly because of its very smart script. It’s probably one of the best high school based films out there but it isn’t perfect, and I do question as to whether it deserves a spot on the bucket list when there are so many outstanding films that have missed out.
The third film on my 100 Movies Bucket List is Mean Girls, a film I’ve seen but never had any strong emotion for. Mean Girls stars Lindsay Lohan as Cady, who after living and being homeschooled in Africa for most of her life, must now enter the terrifying world of an American high school. Here she meets Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) who clue her into high school hierarchy, including introducing her to the Plastics: Regina (Rachel McAdams), Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and Gretchen (Lacey Chabert).
Mean Girls is a teenage movie that is unlike many others – instead of being dumb and crude, it’s surprisingly smart and humorous. From the opening scenes, it’s obvious that this is intelligent. It’s full of subtle jokes and remarks and some absolutely superb one liners, and these are all down to Tina Fey who has written an excellent script. And in the process appears to have some of the best lines as teacher Mrs Norbury, but do you blame her? Mean Girls manages to portray the high school hierarchy and social interactions perfectly. Whilst is is obviously catering more to American high schoolers, I doubt there are many that would watch this and not see something that they personally experienced at high school. It’s almost poking fun at the high school experience but in such a smart and enjoyable way. There are moments and lines in this that are almost verging on inappropriate, and likely wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s society, but even though this was made in 2004 I don’t doubt that this impropriety is still reflective of modern day high schools.
The acting on offer here is superb. Lindsay Lohan is entirely believable as Cady and this is hugely important considering the message Mean Girls is portraying. This film is entirely about the realisation that you should be happy about you are, and that putting other people down will never achieve anything. Getting this message across is done very well, in a funny yet almost heartwarming manner although admittedly it is all rather obvious. Although at least this tries to avoid as many teenage film clichés as possible, which makes for a refreshing change.
My problem with Mean Girls is the whole bitchiness of it all that underpins the second act. I know “mean” girls were to be expected, but by the end I found myself getting very irritable with how horrible these girls were and the constant sniping at each other. This may stem from my own sometimes unpleasant experiences at high school, but teenage girls stabbing each other in the backs gets very old very quickly. Fortunately the ending does at least relieve some of the meanness and provide a surprisingly heartwarming and uplifting resolution, but I’m afraid some of the damage remains. And I must admit that seeing a smart girl play dumb and risk failing for a boy really makes my blood boil, and yes I do know it’s only a film.
Overall Mean Girls is a well done teenage film which stands out mostly because of its very smart script. It’s probably one of the best high school based films out there but it isn’t perfect, and I do question as to whether it deserves a spot on the bucket list when there are so many outstanding films that have missed out.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Twist (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2021
I'm not sure what grabbed me about this one to make me watch... probably the cast. When will I learn?
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Mulan (2020) in Movies
Dec 18, 2020
Completely uninteresting
Mulan (2020) is the live action adaptation of the 1998 Disney animation of the same name, the latest in the live action remakes of Disney classics based on a young woman who disguises herself as a male soldier to save her father.
I’ll start with an admission: I’ve never seen the original animated Mulan. Despite being an avid Disney fan, growing up living and breathing everything Disney, somehow as an eleven year old when it was first released Mulan just passed me by, and has carried in doing so in the 20+ years since. Unlike the other live action Disney remakes in which I had so many preconceptions and so much love for the originals, I went into Mulan entirely open and with no expectations. This I hoped would prove to be a benefit when watching this remake, however I’m afraid to say that it actually may have put me at even more of a disadvantage.
The biggest issue with this film is that is entirely lacking in everything you’d usually expect from an animated Disney film and what I don’t doubt is present in the 1998 original. Disney films are full of heart, laughter, cutesy creatures and catchy songs whilst with an underlying serious plot with more menace and threat than you’d expect. This remake appears to have removed everything you know and love about Disney and replaced it with a very serious, very drawn out and actually quite dull plot. Yes there is still the good message in here that hopefully will motivate young women, but it’s lost behind a film that is severely lacking in any really spirit or character.
Yifei Liu does well as Mulan, at least with what she’s given to work with as far as the script goes. However she really suffers with the romance side, as there is zero chemistry between Mulan and Honghui, even with Yoson An’s charismatic performance. Jet Li is barely recognisable as the Emperor and Donnie Yen really needed to channel more of his Rogue One character to lighten the mood. Even the villains, Bori Khan (Jason Scott Lee) and Xianniang (Li Gong) have little to work with, with Xianniang’s witch being let down by the most by the poor writing and character development.
The cast however aren’t really at fault here. The film looks good, the sets and costumes are impressive and everything feels lush and colourful. However I felt the action scenes had been so obviously ‘Disney-fied’ that they lost all sense of fun and, well, action. They felt over choreographed and with the large amount of fight scenes in this, the lack of proper violence and blood was far too obvious. And the over-used slow motion alongside some questionable CGI was unbearable. Considering they wanted to make this a more accurate and serious Disney adaptation, it’s a shame they didn’t go far enough to make the action a little more adult.
I really wanted to like this, but for me it was just severely deficient in anything that makes a Disney film likeable. Had I seen the original, it may have at least brought some form of love and nostalgia. However all this has succeeded in doing is making me want to watch the original, both as a comparison and for some much needed fun and laughter.
I’ll start with an admission: I’ve never seen the original animated Mulan. Despite being an avid Disney fan, growing up living and breathing everything Disney, somehow as an eleven year old when it was first released Mulan just passed me by, and has carried in doing so in the 20+ years since. Unlike the other live action Disney remakes in which I had so many preconceptions and so much love for the originals, I went into Mulan entirely open and with no expectations. This I hoped would prove to be a benefit when watching this remake, however I’m afraid to say that it actually may have put me at even more of a disadvantage.
The biggest issue with this film is that is entirely lacking in everything you’d usually expect from an animated Disney film and what I don’t doubt is present in the 1998 original. Disney films are full of heart, laughter, cutesy creatures and catchy songs whilst with an underlying serious plot with more menace and threat than you’d expect. This remake appears to have removed everything you know and love about Disney and replaced it with a very serious, very drawn out and actually quite dull plot. Yes there is still the good message in here that hopefully will motivate young women, but it’s lost behind a film that is severely lacking in any really spirit or character.
Yifei Liu does well as Mulan, at least with what she’s given to work with as far as the script goes. However she really suffers with the romance side, as there is zero chemistry between Mulan and Honghui, even with Yoson An’s charismatic performance. Jet Li is barely recognisable as the Emperor and Donnie Yen really needed to channel more of his Rogue One character to lighten the mood. Even the villains, Bori Khan (Jason Scott Lee) and Xianniang (Li Gong) have little to work with, with Xianniang’s witch being let down by the most by the poor writing and character development.
The cast however aren’t really at fault here. The film looks good, the sets and costumes are impressive and everything feels lush and colourful. However I felt the action scenes had been so obviously ‘Disney-fied’ that they lost all sense of fun and, well, action. They felt over choreographed and with the large amount of fight scenes in this, the lack of proper violence and blood was far too obvious. And the over-used slow motion alongside some questionable CGI was unbearable. Considering they wanted to make this a more accurate and serious Disney adaptation, it’s a shame they didn’t go far enough to make the action a little more adult.
I really wanted to like this, but for me it was just severely deficient in anything that makes a Disney film likeable. Had I seen the original, it may have at least brought some form of love and nostalgia. However all this has succeeded in doing is making me want to watch the original, both as a comparison and for some much needed fun and laughter.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Firstly, and slightly off topic, I wanted to mention the actual event of this being released. The sheer volume of screenings was amazing and I would be really interested in knowing how many people attended at my cinema. The other thing that amused me was what I would consider to be really stereotypical advertising. Most of the audience when I went were younger than me so I'm not sure that Cunnard and health related advertising was really their sort of thing (I did appreciate the back pain tip though.)
Despite having never seen a full episode of Downton I still enjoyed the film, they did (what felt like) an incredibly good job of filling in the blanks in the backstory. I'm sure there were still bits missing but I was certainly handed enough to understand everything that what going on.
The other thing that was a great benefit to the film was the fact that everyone had been acting these parts, and with each other, for years. The interactions were great and the ensemble made for a brilliant production. I'm not going to go into the individual main actors, it seems a little redundant considering how well established the Downton world is. All the actors brought a great feeling of history to their roles and I can't argue with their success.
All this praise can't go on forever though, I did have some issues with the storyline. The main arc seemed to work well but some of the smaller threads left me shrugging. We have Tom who is sought out by a gentleman played by Stephen Campbell Moore. This part was rather fleeting, and that perplexed me. Trying to avoid spoilers... if I told someone this part of the story out of context combined with the description of the film I would expect them to think it was a major part of the film, and not just something that goes as quickly as it arrived. Then we have Barrow (I really hope I've got that character name right), he has his own little story that plays alongside the main one as we see him put out during the tensions at Downton. I don't object to this storyline, but I don't see that it made any impact on the rest of the film, there was certainly nothing in it that couldn't have been achieved in the main setting. All it really did was give him somewhere to go that wasn't the house.
I was very aware throughout that this "film" felt like a Christmas special. There were a lot of bits to it that were left open and didn't tie together at the end... which is exactly how you'd expect a series to end to lead into another. I came out wondering if I'd missed something about a new series. I probably would have been happier having seen this as a TV special... although I obviously wouldn't have seen it had it been on TV because I don't watch the series. The whole thing has a very homely feel to it which I just don't think works in a cinema setting. That being said, I did enjoy myself and I'm sure that fans of the series would have enjoyed it more than I did.
Read the full review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/downton-abbey-movie-review.html
Despite having never seen a full episode of Downton I still enjoyed the film, they did (what felt like) an incredibly good job of filling in the blanks in the backstory. I'm sure there were still bits missing but I was certainly handed enough to understand everything that what going on.
The other thing that was a great benefit to the film was the fact that everyone had been acting these parts, and with each other, for years. The interactions were great and the ensemble made for a brilliant production. I'm not going to go into the individual main actors, it seems a little redundant considering how well established the Downton world is. All the actors brought a great feeling of history to their roles and I can't argue with their success.
All this praise can't go on forever though, I did have some issues with the storyline. The main arc seemed to work well but some of the smaller threads left me shrugging. We have Tom who is sought out by a gentleman played by Stephen Campbell Moore. This part was rather fleeting, and that perplexed me. Trying to avoid spoilers... if I told someone this part of the story out of context combined with the description of the film I would expect them to think it was a major part of the film, and not just something that goes as quickly as it arrived. Then we have Barrow (I really hope I've got that character name right), he has his own little story that plays alongside the main one as we see him put out during the tensions at Downton. I don't object to this storyline, but I don't see that it made any impact on the rest of the film, there was certainly nothing in it that couldn't have been achieved in the main setting. All it really did was give him somewhere to go that wasn't the house.
I was very aware throughout that this "film" felt like a Christmas special. There were a lot of bits to it that were left open and didn't tie together at the end... which is exactly how you'd expect a series to end to lead into another. I came out wondering if I'd missed something about a new series. I probably would have been happier having seen this as a TV special... although I obviously wouldn't have seen it had it been on TV because I don't watch the series. The whole thing has a very homely feel to it which I just don't think works in a cinema setting. That being said, I did enjoy myself and I'm sure that fans of the series would have enjoyed it more than I did.
Read the full review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/downton-abbey-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Clownado (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on Clownado
Characters – Big Ronnie is the abusive husband and circus performer that killed Savanna’s lover and forced her into an embarrassing and humiliating performance for his show. After he becomes cursed, along with his fellow performers, he gets caught in the position of being able to transport through tornadoes, where they look to kill anyone and everyone. Savanna is the wife of Big Ronnie, she is trying to leave him, only to find her plan shattered and herself forced into performing in his circus, she puts the curse on them with a friend before going on the run, only for the circus performers not to leave her alone. Hunter is a trucker who picks us Dion, he knows the town well and is willing to do a good deed to help a stranger or a friend. Dion is the black Elvis impersonator who gets questioned about his look by everyone he meets, he helps along the way in the battle against the killer clowns.
Performances – The performances in this film are wildly over the top, which only helps with the tone of the film, John O’Hare as the leader of the clowns goes full evil in his performance, while Rachel Lagen shows just how much of a victim she is. When it comes to the rest of the cast, everybody knows who they are playing through this film.
Story – The story here follows a vengeful clown and his circus performers that use tornadoes to transport around the world in search for the woman that put the curse on them, as they look to pile up the body count, while everybody else is looking for a way to stop their evil once and for all. First thing is first, if you liked Sharknado, you will understand how to watch a film with this tone, you can’t take anything you see in this story seriously, but you aren’t meant to, we get a gimmick storyline, which does everything it needs to, to make you laugh at certain moments that are bonkers, that is designed to embrace this. We do get the idea of strangers working together, with a full range of colourful characters, as well as having plenty of bloodshed along the way, giving this story a fun grindhouse feel at times too.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in this film comes from the over the top style of the kills and Big Ronnie’s actions, the horror comes from the bloodshed, with the clowns being over powered and will to kill with any means.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, which usually sees people pass through it, most characters know each other or have dealt with people behaving the same way, which shows us just how they will come together to look to survive the clownado.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are blood splatter heavy, they do tend to be extremely close up on the wounds which does add to the effects of shock value of the damage caused by the clowns.
Scene of the Movie – The first clownado.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While filled with blood, the close ups of the body damage, sometimes, hide away from the reaction on the victims face.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly over the top idea, that like Sharknado works to bring one of the most popular horror figures, clowns to a new way to haunt people.
Overall: Purely Fun Horror Comedy.
Characters – Big Ronnie is the abusive husband and circus performer that killed Savanna’s lover and forced her into an embarrassing and humiliating performance for his show. After he becomes cursed, along with his fellow performers, he gets caught in the position of being able to transport through tornadoes, where they look to kill anyone and everyone. Savanna is the wife of Big Ronnie, she is trying to leave him, only to find her plan shattered and herself forced into performing in his circus, she puts the curse on them with a friend before going on the run, only for the circus performers not to leave her alone. Hunter is a trucker who picks us Dion, he knows the town well and is willing to do a good deed to help a stranger or a friend. Dion is the black Elvis impersonator who gets questioned about his look by everyone he meets, he helps along the way in the battle against the killer clowns.
Performances – The performances in this film are wildly over the top, which only helps with the tone of the film, John O’Hare as the leader of the clowns goes full evil in his performance, while Rachel Lagen shows just how much of a victim she is. When it comes to the rest of the cast, everybody knows who they are playing through this film.
Story – The story here follows a vengeful clown and his circus performers that use tornadoes to transport around the world in search for the woman that put the curse on them, as they look to pile up the body count, while everybody else is looking for a way to stop their evil once and for all. First thing is first, if you liked Sharknado, you will understand how to watch a film with this tone, you can’t take anything you see in this story seriously, but you aren’t meant to, we get a gimmick storyline, which does everything it needs to, to make you laugh at certain moments that are bonkers, that is designed to embrace this. We do get the idea of strangers working together, with a full range of colourful characters, as well as having plenty of bloodshed along the way, giving this story a fun grindhouse feel at times too.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in this film comes from the over the top style of the kills and Big Ronnie’s actions, the horror comes from the bloodshed, with the clowns being over powered and will to kill with any means.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, which usually sees people pass through it, most characters know each other or have dealt with people behaving the same way, which shows us just how they will come together to look to survive the clownado.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are blood splatter heavy, they do tend to be extremely close up on the wounds which does add to the effects of shock value of the damage caused by the clowns.
Scene of the Movie – The first clownado.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While filled with blood, the close ups of the body damage, sometimes, hide away from the reaction on the victims face.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly over the top idea, that like Sharknado works to bring one of the most popular horror figures, clowns to a new way to haunt people.
Overall: Purely Fun Horror Comedy.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
Where Is Rowan Morrison?
Trying to get into the "horror mood" this year I thought I would revisit a "cult classic" which I hadn't seen in 20+ years and it is still as haunting as I remember.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.