“BIG MIRACLE” (Drew Barrymore, John Krasinski, Ted Danson & Kristen Bell)
Following in the footsteps of “Dolphin Tale” this is another true story of water mammals being rescued by humans. What “Big Miracle” does to prove their story is real is use actual news footage of the event. Yes, it adds realism but overall, I felt it detracted from the story by over-use. All right, I get it, this really happened, but I'm more concerned with the whales than I am with old Tom Brokaw footage.
“Big Miracle” is the tale of three grey whales that become trapped in the ice off the northernmost region of Alaska. I had a problem with the trailer when they announced the whales were named Fred, Wilma & Bam Bam... As everyone should know The Flintstones child was named Pebbles – Barney & Betty had Bam Bam. They explain the reason for the misnomer in the film as being the baby whale is a male not a female...
Who gives a s--t if a whale named Pebbles is a male? If you have a problem with it, call him Dino. But having Fred & Wilma & Bam Bam is simply unacceptable and goes against the laws of cartoon nature. There. I said what we have all wanted to say.
With that off my chest, I consider this film much like “Dolphin Tale” – It’s a sweet, touching movie where mankind attempts to save one of the world’s creatures instead of hunting it to extinction – Though that idea is bandied about by the local Eskimo tribe that votes on whether or not to kill the whales or try to save them... to then kill at a later date when they’re technically not ‘fish in a barrel’.
For the most part, I like John Krasinski as a movie actor and here he fits the bill as amiable Anchorage news reporter Adam Carlson; the man who breaks the story of the three trapped whales, which gradually leads to national coverage.
Drew Barrymore plays Greenpeace activist Rachel – and although her character is likable enough, her cheesy acting style makes you want her to succeed in her mission to save the whales, but not to win back ex-boyfriend Adam.
Ted Danson is McGraw, the bad-guy Oil Company executive that comes to realize that saving these whales is the kind of publicity that will help him to destroy thousands of animals in the near future with his plans to destroy a game reserve.
Kristen Bell is unusually effective as Jill, the ‘pretty princess’ news reporter that accepts the job of covering the story no one else wants.
Dermont Mulrooney, another one of those actors that always seems to be annoyed no matter what his character calls for, plays the man in charge of getting an ice breaking barge to the site of the trapped whales before the hole they’re breathing from freezes over completely. His character is quite a cranky little snot and so his annoyed veneer actually fits here.
Stephen Root plays the Alaskan governor who is forced to change his stance on helping the whales when it becomes national news.
And the Daily Show’s Rob Riggle has yet another amusing bit part (He was the cop in the original ‘Hangover’ that had his squad car stolen) when he and his business partner appear with devices that help to keep the ice from sealing the whales underwater to meet their doom. I always find it amusing how there is no difference between Minnesotans and Canadians as they speak the same language... eh?
That’s the run-down. It’s just a nice little tale of human beings actually being humane. The power of the media is brought forth, for without it there’s no way anyone would have bothered to do anything about three whales trapped in the Arctic Circle. The governor wouldn’t have called on the National Guard and the guys with the ice melters would not have known about the sea creatures’ plight.
It’s one of those films that you just can’t say anything bad about. Unless you’re one of those nitwits that thinks the Cold War is still going on and it was ‘just wrong’ for the U. S. to request help from those godless Ruskies...
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE
“EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE” (Thomas Horn, Max Von Sydow, Sandra Bullock & Tom Hanks)
Basic rule of thumb #1 in making a movie – Don’t expect a kid actor to be able to carry your film. ‘EL&IC’ does, and it fails miserably. Thomas Horn plays Oscar, a lad who was clearly closer to his father (Tom Hanks) than his mother (Sandra Bullock) and when dad dies on 9 / 11, Oscar goes from being an interesting child – a little quirky, but in an intelligent way – to being a drama queen.
Oscar screams at people for no reason, even while he’s trying to explain his situation; and Thomas, whom I don’t blame for coming across as a totally unbelievable character, is expected to carry this rather lengthy film from start to finish – he does the narrative and he is practically in every scene. That’s asking a lot of a kid actor and the director seemed oblivious as to when the boy was over acting to the point of irritation to the viewing audience. I stopped caring about Oscar’s plight when he told someone where he was during each and every one of his father’s phone calls home on the day he died. Oscar wasn’t home for five of the six calls and at one point he says, “I know I was in front of the church when my dad’s
4th call came because I counted the steps from my school to the church and a typical child my age takes ‘X’ amount of steps per minute...” blah, blah, blah... My eyes were rolling like pinballs at that one. From then on, I found Oscar to be the creation of a writer that didn’t know how to write for a child. He stopped being real to me and so I wasn’t affected by his predicament.
The predicament itself was intriguing; Oscar accidentally breaks a vase that was situated on a shelf in his father’s closet. Hidden inside the vase was a small envelope with the word ‘Black’ written on it. Inside the envelope was an unmarked key. Oscar then makes it his purpose in life to find what the key fits. He starts by visiting every person in New York named Black. Oscar’s adventures should have made this a movie worth watching. Unfortunately, most of the people Oscar meets are kind of boring. Well, they’re New Yorkers, what would one expect?
Oscar is also a little bit creepy as he likes to watch his neighbors thru binoculars. I found it to be unnerving that he mainly zoomed in on his grandmother. When an elderly gentleman (Max Von Sydow) rents a room in Granny’s apartment, Oscar is told to ‘leave him alone’. When The Renter’s identity is finally revealed, they think it’s a big dramatic moment, but my wife & I knew who he was before his first encounter with Oscar. The old man doesn’t speak – not that he can’t, he simply chooses not to. He was the words ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ written on the palms of his hands to answer any question requiring one of those answers.
One of the reasons I’m very disappointed in this years’ Oscars... perhaps I should use Academy Awards here – is, not only are my nominees are completely different from the Academy’s, but here’s a year where a silent, black and white film is nominated for Best Picture; an actor in that silent film is nominated for Best Actor; an actor that doesn’t say a word in his film is nominated for Best Supporting Actor and a silent movie is nominated for Best Screenplay . . . WTF?
But the main reason to stay with this film is to learn what the key fits and what’s inside – and that intriguing set up – the main crux of the movie – is blown off. Another odd thing Oscar does is hide the phone messages his dad sent on 9 / 11 from his mother. He plays all but the last one for The Renter – leaving us wondering what the hell was the final message? The only way to redeem this story is for that message to have some emotional impact – to make up for all the overly dramatic screaming and bad acting we’ve had to endure – I needed that message to be something heart wrenching... and it isn’t. It’s, like everything else in ‘EL & IC’; unemotional and rather pointless.
This movie is nominated for Best Picture. The even duller ‘Moneyball’ is nominated for Best Picture (As least ‘EL&IC’ had the possibility of ‘intrigue’) The barely entertaining ‘Hugo’ is nominated for Best Picture. A silent black & white movie that over 30% of audiences in the U.K. walked out on and demanded their money back is nominated for Best picture. A Woody Allen movie is nominated for Best Picture (Wasn’t he banned from this country for molesting his daughter? Oh, that’s right, he married his daughter so it’s not a crime) A film in which one of the stars said, “I’ve seen it twice and I still have no idea what it means.” is nominated for Best Picture – But the Best Picture of 2011 is NOT nominated. The Best Picture of 2011 didn’t receive a single nomination in any one of the 532 categories.
So despite the fact that I write a review of every movie I see and I’ve seen about
70 of them this year (Down a bit from previous years) I will not be watching the Academy Awards Ceremony this year – I have no rooting interest. I know ‘War Horse’ won’t win, so what’s the point? It’d be nice if ‘The Debt’ was nominated, seeing it was clearly the Best Picture of 2011 and we could have a neat little match race between it and ‘War Horse’, but in a down year for film – the Academy has decided to give an acting nomination to Jonah Hill... Seriously? Does anyone think Jonah Hill did a better job of acting in ‘Moneyball’ than Jesper Christenson did in ‘The Debt’ ?
Also, I did not see ‘Beginners’ (though I wanted to) so this is going to seem like a goofy prediction, but my one sure bet for Oscar night is Christopher Plummer for Best Supporting Actor. He’s 82. He’s never won. Only been nominated once before. And he was also in “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”. He wins.
Let’s see, anything else bother me about ‘EL&IC”? Oh yes, the tambourine! As if Oscar’s screaming and hammed up phony emotional outbursts weren’t annoying enough – the kid shakes a tambourine throughout the entire movie. I am not exaggerating, I counted 37 scenes where I was hoping the ghost of John Belushi would show up in a toga and rip that stupid so-called musical instrument from Oscar’s hand and smash it to smithereens.
Basic rule of thumb #1 in making a movie – Don’t expect a kid actor to be able to carry your film. ‘EL&IC’ does, and it fails miserably. Thomas Horn plays Oscar, a lad who was clearly closer to his father (Tom Hanks) than his mother (Sandra Bullock) and when dad dies on 9 / 11, Oscar goes from being an interesting child – a little quirky, but in an intelligent way – to being a drama queen.
Oscar screams at people for no reason, even while he’s trying to explain his situation; and Thomas, whom I don’t blame for coming across as a totally unbelievable character, is expected to carry this rather lengthy film from start to finish – he does the narrative and he is practically in every scene. That’s asking a lot of a kid actor and the director seemed oblivious as to when the boy was over acting to the point of irritation to the viewing audience. I stopped caring about Oscar’s plight when he told someone where he was during each and every one of his father’s phone calls home on the day he died. Oscar wasn’t home for five of the six calls and at one point he says, “I know I was in front of the church when my dad’s
4th call came because I counted the steps from my school to the church and a typical child my age takes ‘X’ amount of steps per minute...” blah, blah, blah... My eyes were rolling like pinballs at that one. From then on, I found Oscar to be the creation of a writer that didn’t know how to write for a child. He stopped being real to me and so I wasn’t affected by his predicament.
The predicament itself was intriguing; Oscar accidentally breaks a vase that was situated on a shelf in his father’s closet. Hidden inside the vase was a small envelope with the word ‘Black’ written on it. Inside the envelope was an unmarked key. Oscar then makes it his purpose in life to find what the key fits. He starts by visiting every person in New York named Black. Oscar’s adventures should have made this a movie worth watching. Unfortunately, most of the people Oscar meets are kind of boring. Well, they’re New Yorkers, what would one expect?
Oscar is also a little bit creepy as he likes to watch his neighbors thru binoculars. I found it to be unnerving that he mainly zoomed in on his grandmother. When an elderly gentleman (Max Von Sydow) rents a room in Granny’s apartment, Oscar is told to ‘leave him alone’. When The Renter’s identity is finally revealed, they think it’s a big dramatic moment, but my wife & I knew who he was before his first encounter with Oscar. The old man doesn’t speak – not that he can’t, he simply chooses not to. He was the words ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ written on the palms of his hands to answer any question requiring one of those answers.
One of the reasons I’m very disappointed in this years’ Oscars... perhaps I should use Academy Awards here – is, not only are my nominees are completely different from the Academy’s, but here’s a year where a silent, black and white film is nominated for Best Picture; an actor in that silent film is nominated for Best Actor; an actor that doesn’t say a word in his film is nominated for Best Supporting Actor and a silent movie is nominated for Best Screenplay . . . WTF?
But the main reason to stay with this film is to learn what the key fits and what’s inside – and that intriguing set up – the main crux of the movie – is blown off. Another odd thing Oscar does is hide the phone messages his dad sent on 9 / 11 from his mother. He plays all but the last one for The Renter – leaving us wondering what the hell was the final message? The only way to redeem this story is for that message to have some emotional impact – to make up for all the overly dramatic screaming and bad acting we’ve had to endure – I needed that message to be something heart wrenching... and it isn’t. It’s, like everything else in ‘EL & IC’; unemotional and rather pointless.
This movie is nominated for Best Picture. The even duller ‘Moneyball’ is nominated for Best Picture (As least ‘EL&IC’ had the possibility of ‘intrigue’) The barely entertaining ‘Hugo’ is nominated for Best Picture. A silent black & white movie that over 30% of audiences in the U.K. walked out on and demanded their money back is nominated for Best picture. A Woody Allen movie is nominated for Best Picture (Wasn’t he banned from this country for molesting his daughter? Oh, that’s right, he married his daughter so it’s not a crime) A film in which one of the stars said, “I’ve seen it twice and I still have no idea what it means.” is nominated for Best Picture – But the Best Picture of 2011 is NOT nominated. The Best Picture of 2011 didn’t receive a single nomination in any one of the 532 categories.
So despite the fact that I write a review of every movie I see and I’ve seen about
70 of them this year (Down a bit from previous years) I will not be watching the Academy Awards Ceremony this year – I have no rooting interest. I know ‘War Horse’ won’t win, so what’s the point? It’d be nice if ‘The Debt’ was nominated, seeing it was clearly the Best Picture of 2011 and we could have a neat little match race between it and ‘War Horse’, but in a down year for film – the Academy has decided to give an acting nomination to Jonah Hill... Seriously? Does anyone think Jonah Hill did a better job of acting in ‘Moneyball’ than Jesper Christenson did in ‘The Debt’ ?
Also, I did not see ‘Beginners’ (though I wanted to) so this is going to seem like a goofy prediction, but my one sure bet for Oscar night is Christopher Plummer for Best Supporting Actor. He’s 82. He’s never won. Only been nominated once before. And he was also in “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”. He wins.
Let’s see, anything else bother me about ‘EL&IC”? Oh yes, the tambourine! As if Oscar’s screaming and hammed up phony emotional outbursts weren’t annoying enough – the kid shakes a tambourine throughout the entire movie. I am not exaggerating, I counted 37 scenes where I was hoping the ghost of John Belushi would show up in a toga and rip that stupid so-called musical instrument from Oscar’s hand and smash it to smithereens.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The IRON LADY
“The IRON LADY” (Meryl Streep & Jim Broadbent)
I was prepared not to like this film since I vehemently disliked the worst Prime Minister in the history of Great Britain (Well, in my lifetime) I thought they would glorify her mistakes as accomplishments and sugar coat her deplorable decisions that took England from being prosperous (Thanks in part to a pop group called The Beatles) to being an economic disaster... One might call her the prototype to the Bush administration.
Instead, I found a different reason not to like it – it is quite boring – especially the beginning. It piddles along for the first 20 minutes or so showing an old lady (a retired Thatcher) basically doing nothing. She buys a carton of milk... She spends several minutes picking out a suit for her husband to wear... She tells someone on the phone that they’re having halibut for dinner... I wasn’t at all tired when I went into the theatre, but I found myself yawning at the lack of entertainment I was receiving.
Meryl Streep plays Margaret Thatcher from middle-age on and she is very good in the role, though some of the credit should go to the make-up artists that made her look believably elderly, as well as the authentic horrible British teeth she revealed whenever she smiled – usually in a condescending manner toward whomever she was addressing – be it family member, staff member or member of Parliament. I’ve never been a big fan of Streep’s, I think she’s been vastly over-rated in the past, but here she earns her reputation and so I won’t grimace when she finally wins an academy award that she actually deserves. She is good – the film, not so much.
As “Iron Lady” tries to rebound from its droning start, it delves into time travel as Thatcher’s life story is told via memories spurred by the elderly, borderline dementia-stricken Thatcher as she putters around her apartment. Jim Broadbent plays her carefree, happy-go-lucky dead husband Dennis – Sure, who wouldn’t be happy-go-lucky in death after being married to the Iron Bitc... um, I mean, Lady.
Retired Thatcher does make a telling quote when she tells a reporter, on being in politics; “It used to be about trying to DO something – Now it’s about trying to BE someone.”
Problem with Thatcher is that she tried to do too much and most of her ideas were crap.
When the film finally became interesting – on the first lady Prime Minister’s handling of the Falkland Islands debacle – I thought for sure they would spin it to make that look like a reasonable undertaking, but they do not. When the American ambassador questions her motives for calling for an all out attack, Thatcher thinks she puts him in his place by comparing the United States decision to go to war with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor with her extremely stupid military decision - I was glad to see the ambassador, as well as every person in the room at the time wear the same bewildered look I had.
Thatcher makes big speeches about ‘prosperity’ and ‘doing what’s right for the country’ but she doesn’t DO anything about it. Kind of like our current administration...
Margaret Thatcher had no idea how to run a country and as Great Britain begins collapsing around her she blames her staff instead if taking responsibility for her actions. So the film got it right – No sugar coating. She seemed to be surrounded by likable people – which made her hard-assed ‘I’m always right and you’re always wrong’ attitude easier for everyone to put up with, and her steadfast, “I have a Cold War to win’ mentality began the fall of England’s economy. In fact, I found it amusing as the film rolled along that the old Iron Lady with dementia made more sense than the Prime Minister in her prime.
One notation I had was how it struck me that there were no other females involved in the Parliamentary procedure even after M. T. was elected P.M. You’d think after her victory more women would be encouraged to delve into British politics, but I guess she wasn’t a very good role model was she?
It wasn’t a bad film, in the long run, but it left a lot to be desired – there was very little back story as to what qualified Thatcher to make the citizens of Great Britain want to put her in the ultimate place of power... other than losing the frilly hats.
I was prepared not to like this film since I vehemently disliked the worst Prime Minister in the history of Great Britain (Well, in my lifetime) I thought they would glorify her mistakes as accomplishments and sugar coat her deplorable decisions that took England from being prosperous (Thanks in part to a pop group called The Beatles) to being an economic disaster... One might call her the prototype to the Bush administration.
Instead, I found a different reason not to like it – it is quite boring – especially the beginning. It piddles along for the first 20 minutes or so showing an old lady (a retired Thatcher) basically doing nothing. She buys a carton of milk... She spends several minutes picking out a suit for her husband to wear... She tells someone on the phone that they’re having halibut for dinner... I wasn’t at all tired when I went into the theatre, but I found myself yawning at the lack of entertainment I was receiving.
Meryl Streep plays Margaret Thatcher from middle-age on and she is very good in the role, though some of the credit should go to the make-up artists that made her look believably elderly, as well as the authentic horrible British teeth she revealed whenever she smiled – usually in a condescending manner toward whomever she was addressing – be it family member, staff member or member of Parliament. I’ve never been a big fan of Streep’s, I think she’s been vastly over-rated in the past, but here she earns her reputation and so I won’t grimace when she finally wins an academy award that she actually deserves. She is good – the film, not so much.
As “Iron Lady” tries to rebound from its droning start, it delves into time travel as Thatcher’s life story is told via memories spurred by the elderly, borderline dementia-stricken Thatcher as she putters around her apartment. Jim Broadbent plays her carefree, happy-go-lucky dead husband Dennis – Sure, who wouldn’t be happy-go-lucky in death after being married to the Iron Bitc... um, I mean, Lady.
Retired Thatcher does make a telling quote when she tells a reporter, on being in politics; “It used to be about trying to DO something – Now it’s about trying to BE someone.”
Problem with Thatcher is that she tried to do too much and most of her ideas were crap.
When the film finally became interesting – on the first lady Prime Minister’s handling of the Falkland Islands debacle – I thought for sure they would spin it to make that look like a reasonable undertaking, but they do not. When the American ambassador questions her motives for calling for an all out attack, Thatcher thinks she puts him in his place by comparing the United States decision to go to war with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor with her extremely stupid military decision - I was glad to see the ambassador, as well as every person in the room at the time wear the same bewildered look I had.
Thatcher makes big speeches about ‘prosperity’ and ‘doing what’s right for the country’ but she doesn’t DO anything about it. Kind of like our current administration...
Margaret Thatcher had no idea how to run a country and as Great Britain begins collapsing around her she blames her staff instead if taking responsibility for her actions. So the film got it right – No sugar coating. She seemed to be surrounded by likable people – which made her hard-assed ‘I’m always right and you’re always wrong’ attitude easier for everyone to put up with, and her steadfast, “I have a Cold War to win’ mentality began the fall of England’s economy. In fact, I found it amusing as the film rolled along that the old Iron Lady with dementia made more sense than the Prime Minister in her prime.
One notation I had was how it struck me that there were no other females involved in the Parliamentary procedure even after M. T. was elected P.M. You’d think after her victory more women would be encouraged to delve into British politics, but I guess she wasn’t a very good role model was she?
It wasn’t a bad film, in the long run, but it left a lot to be desired – there was very little back story as to what qualified Thatcher to make the citizens of Great Britain want to put her in the ultimate place of power... other than losing the frilly hats.
Monday, January 16, 2012
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN
“MY WEEK WITH MARILYN” (Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branaugh & Eddie Redmayne)
Prior to entering the theatre my main concern was that Michelle Williams simply wasn’t pretty enough to play Marilyn Monroe. Being old enough to remember the living breathing Marilyn, I figure I have the right to pass judgment.
I will congratulate Michelle for getting Marilyn’s voice and mannerisms down, but she never convinced me for a single moment that she was MM – Too many close-ups didn’t help – Every time my mind kept telling me, “That’s Michelle Williams in a blonde wig with a fake beauty mark on her cheek.”
I liken it to having Will Smith play Muhammad Ali; I just wasn’t buying it at all.
Kenneth Branaugh, though looking nothing at all like Laurence Olivier, pulled his impersonation off without any complaints. Laurence, though a talented thespian (a little over-rated, but what actor from his era isn't?) was never an icon like Marilyn.
Branaugh was able to convince me he was Olivier from his acting ability and the fact that the image of Sir Laurence is not ingrained in my memory from childhood.
But it wasn’t Michelle’s casting that made this movie something to scoff at rather than admire – It was the story.
Normally a film taken from someone’s ‘memoirs’ is labeled as being ‘based’ on a true story – “My Week With Marilyn” flat out boasts ‘This IS a TRUE story’. . . Yeah, in Colin Clark’s dreams it’s a true story.
I liked the first half hour or so; it was interesting to see how a movie was brought together – Laurence Olivier being hired as the director and his concerns of working with the American beauty that was reportedly ‘difficult’. And Marilyn did not disappoint... Well, she did disappoint, but disappointment is what was expected so... never mind.
Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) is hired as the 3rd assistant director to Olivier by simply showing up on set and helping out without actually being paid. The title ‘3rd assistant director’ is given to make the gophers feel more important. Redmayne as Colin couldn’t look any more hillbilly if he wore a straw hat and overalls – the distraction is that he spoke with that ultra-British accent and was so soft spoken that I knew he’d never yelp out a ‘Yee-haw!’ for me.
Marilyn arrives with new husband Arthur Miller and within a few scenes Arthur and Marilyn are having marital problems. I know the Millers marriage didn’t last, but I think they probably were still in the stages of bliss so soon after their honeymoon - but if that were the case, Colin’s fantasy wouldn’t be believable... Yee-haw!
Somehow the gopher becomes Marilyn’s favorite person to lean on when she’s depressed and throughout the story Colin both skinny dips and sleeps in the same bed with a naked Marilyn Monroe. Now, they don’t have sex – he didn’t carry the fantasy all the way to ‘give me a break!’ land, but trust me, it was creepy enough just watching her frolic with this hillbilly kid in the nude as if she were madly in love with him.
The first part of the movie was enjoyable – it was interesting to view the behind the scenes making of a film starring Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. But when it turned into Colin Clark’s ‘fantasy’ version of what it was like it became to unbelievable to take seriously; when the naked Marilyn
invites the gopher to ‘spoon’ with her while she was lying naked beside him, I could only picture the real life Colin whacking off at his typewriter as he wrote that fantasy scene... Reality checks weren’t being cashed during the second half of the film as it deteriorated into something a kid going through puberty would write... At least they waited about 60 years before trying to pass this story off as a being TRUE. I’m sure Marilyn is rolling over in her grave... but not to spoon with a gopher!
Prior to entering the theatre my main concern was that Michelle Williams simply wasn’t pretty enough to play Marilyn Monroe. Being old enough to remember the living breathing Marilyn, I figure I have the right to pass judgment.
I will congratulate Michelle for getting Marilyn’s voice and mannerisms down, but she never convinced me for a single moment that she was MM – Too many close-ups didn’t help – Every time my mind kept telling me, “That’s Michelle Williams in a blonde wig with a fake beauty mark on her cheek.”
I liken it to having Will Smith play Muhammad Ali; I just wasn’t buying it at all.
Kenneth Branaugh, though looking nothing at all like Laurence Olivier, pulled his impersonation off without any complaints. Laurence, though a talented thespian (a little over-rated, but what actor from his era isn't?) was never an icon like Marilyn.
Branaugh was able to convince me he was Olivier from his acting ability and the fact that the image of Sir Laurence is not ingrained in my memory from childhood.
But it wasn’t Michelle’s casting that made this movie something to scoff at rather than admire – It was the story.
Normally a film taken from someone’s ‘memoirs’ is labeled as being ‘based’ on a true story – “My Week With Marilyn” flat out boasts ‘This IS a TRUE story’. . . Yeah, in Colin Clark’s dreams it’s a true story.
I liked the first half hour or so; it was interesting to see how a movie was brought together – Laurence Olivier being hired as the director and his concerns of working with the American beauty that was reportedly ‘difficult’. And Marilyn did not disappoint... Well, she did disappoint, but disappointment is what was expected so... never mind.
Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) is hired as the 3rd assistant director to Olivier by simply showing up on set and helping out without actually being paid. The title ‘3rd assistant director’ is given to make the gophers feel more important. Redmayne as Colin couldn’t look any more hillbilly if he wore a straw hat and overalls – the distraction is that he spoke with that ultra-British accent and was so soft spoken that I knew he’d never yelp out a ‘Yee-haw!’ for me.
Marilyn arrives with new husband Arthur Miller and within a few scenes Arthur and Marilyn are having marital problems. I know the Millers marriage didn’t last, but I think they probably were still in the stages of bliss so soon after their honeymoon - but if that were the case, Colin’s fantasy wouldn’t be believable... Yee-haw!
Somehow the gopher becomes Marilyn’s favorite person to lean on when she’s depressed and throughout the story Colin both skinny dips and sleeps in the same bed with a naked Marilyn Monroe. Now, they don’t have sex – he didn’t carry the fantasy all the way to ‘give me a break!’ land, but trust me, it was creepy enough just watching her frolic with this hillbilly kid in the nude as if she were madly in love with him.
The first part of the movie was enjoyable – it was interesting to view the behind the scenes making of a film starring Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. But when it turned into Colin Clark’s ‘fantasy’ version of what it was like it became to unbelievable to take seriously; when the naked Marilyn
invites the gopher to ‘spoon’ with her while she was lying naked beside him, I could only picture the real life Colin whacking off at his typewriter as he wrote that fantasy scene... Reality checks weren’t being cashed during the second half of the film as it deteriorated into something a kid going through puberty would write... At least they waited about 60 years before trying to pass this story off as a being TRUE. I’m sure Marilyn is rolling over in her grave... but not to spoon with a gopher!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY
“TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY” (Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, John Hurt & many more)
Today’s ‘Worst Person In The World’ award goes to Keith Olberman, who spent an entire segment of his show ‘Countdown’ singing the praises of this movie, which he hailed as possibly the best movie ever made. I was expecting to see a film that clearly belonged in the Top 10 of 2011 because Olberman wasn’t the only one harping “Tinker, Tailor...” as a taut espionage thriller. It’s going to end up being closer to the Bottom 10 than the Top 10 and I don’t think the let down from high expectations is the reason – this film is exceedingly bland; about halfway thru I renamed it “Tinker Tailor Snoring Spy”.
I was also encouraged when I saw that John le Carre, author of the original novel, was one of the producers – that’s usually a good sign that they ‘did things correctly’.
I came away with the impression that the film was made for those who had seen the British miniseries version of the story in 1979 because I had no idea what was going on – who was who – and why were they doing what they were doing and where they were doing it. Olberman did warn me that the film bounces back and forth in time and the best way to tell which ‘period’ they were in was to notice George Smiley’s glasses, since director Tomas Alfredson decided not give the audience any assistance in figuring out where and when in time the current scene was taking place.
But when all was said and done and the ‘Mole’ was revealed – easily figured out by everyone in my party – there was no ‘taut’ thrilling finale; the ending like the rest of the film was bland and boring.
Gary Oldman played George, the ‘Spy’ of the title (though they ALL were spies) and if ever an actor slept walked his way thru a film, Gary’s performance here rivals the Nicolas Cage in almost every single one of his hundreds of roles of the past decade – the difference being we expect mediocrity from Cage, NOT from Oldman.
The concept was intriguing; John Hurt, playing ‘Control’, the boss of all the spies working for ‘The Circus’, discovers he has a mole in his organization and calls all of the suspects together to hopefully get the others to flush out the traitor. His right hand man, George, is pretty much put in control by Control but Smiley later learns that he too is a suspect.
After a half hour or so of ‘set ups’ to nowhere, a character named Ricky Tarr appears and tells George an interesting story about an encounter he had with a Russian girl named Irina – the story is set in England in 1973 so Cold War fears are prominent.
We are told of a ring of Russians called ‘Witchcraft’ but we are never really told as to what their mission is or who they actually are. Just the word ‘Witchcraft’ is supposed to make adrenaline pump thru our veins and strike fear in our hearts – it did nothing for me.
Mark Strong makes an early appearance as spy ‘Jim’ who is shot and killed during a meeting in Budapest. I mention him only because he finally returns to some of the promise he showed earlier in his career. To give the film a bit of praise – the acting is above average – and even though Oldman never changes his expression; whether celebrating at the Circus’ Christmas party or discovering fellow spy, Bill (Colin Firth) is diddling his wife, Ann – Smiley’s countenance remains as stoic as a statue. That couldn’t have been easy, yet at the same time made George come across as an unfeeling robot.
Another piece of faint praise; the movie was set in the 70’s and it not only had the look of that decade, I kept being struck by the fact that it ‘felt’ as if it had been filmed in the 70’s... You tell me if that’s a good thing or not.
Toby Jones plays feisty little spy Percy who acts like he’s in charge and can do whatever he wants. In the latter part of the film, the others start talking about Allaline; ”Where is Allaline? Did you meet with Allaline?” I had no idea who Allaline was until the credits rolled and they revealed that Percy’s last name was Allaline.
The film becomes a horrible parade of one bland float after another with no cohesive story being put together until the final scenes – and then, whether it was due to indifference or lack of surprise, I really didn’t care who the mole was, I just wanted this movie to end.
I tried to watch closely, to pay attention to the clues so I could cleverly tell my wife and ex-teacher why everything that happened in the movie happened – but along the way, I simply lost interest.
An espionage thriller? Not hardly – it’s just about a bunch of whining English twits that start bawling like babies when they’re outted as traitors to her majesty.
Today’s ‘Worst Person In The World’ award goes to Keith Olberman, who spent an entire segment of his show ‘Countdown’ singing the praises of this movie, which he hailed as possibly the best movie ever made. I was expecting to see a film that clearly belonged in the Top 10 of 2011 because Olberman wasn’t the only one harping “Tinker, Tailor...” as a taut espionage thriller. It’s going to end up being closer to the Bottom 10 than the Top 10 and I don’t think the let down from high expectations is the reason – this film is exceedingly bland; about halfway thru I renamed it “Tinker Tailor Snoring Spy”.
I was also encouraged when I saw that John le Carre, author of the original novel, was one of the producers – that’s usually a good sign that they ‘did things correctly’.
I came away with the impression that the film was made for those who had seen the British miniseries version of the story in 1979 because I had no idea what was going on – who was who – and why were they doing what they were doing and where they were doing it. Olberman did warn me that the film bounces back and forth in time and the best way to tell which ‘period’ they were in was to notice George Smiley’s glasses, since director Tomas Alfredson decided not give the audience any assistance in figuring out where and when in time the current scene was taking place.
But when all was said and done and the ‘Mole’ was revealed – easily figured out by everyone in my party – there was no ‘taut’ thrilling finale; the ending like the rest of the film was bland and boring.
Gary Oldman played George, the ‘Spy’ of the title (though they ALL were spies) and if ever an actor slept walked his way thru a film, Gary’s performance here rivals the Nicolas Cage in almost every single one of his hundreds of roles of the past decade – the difference being we expect mediocrity from Cage, NOT from Oldman.
The concept was intriguing; John Hurt, playing ‘Control’, the boss of all the spies working for ‘The Circus’, discovers he has a mole in his organization and calls all of the suspects together to hopefully get the others to flush out the traitor. His right hand man, George, is pretty much put in control by Control but Smiley later learns that he too is a suspect.
After a half hour or so of ‘set ups’ to nowhere, a character named Ricky Tarr appears and tells George an interesting story about an encounter he had with a Russian girl named Irina – the story is set in England in 1973 so Cold War fears are prominent.
We are told of a ring of Russians called ‘Witchcraft’ but we are never really told as to what their mission is or who they actually are. Just the word ‘Witchcraft’ is supposed to make adrenaline pump thru our veins and strike fear in our hearts – it did nothing for me.
Mark Strong makes an early appearance as spy ‘Jim’ who is shot and killed during a meeting in Budapest. I mention him only because he finally returns to some of the promise he showed earlier in his career. To give the film a bit of praise – the acting is above average – and even though Oldman never changes his expression; whether celebrating at the Circus’ Christmas party or discovering fellow spy, Bill (Colin Firth) is diddling his wife, Ann – Smiley’s countenance remains as stoic as a statue. That couldn’t have been easy, yet at the same time made George come across as an unfeeling robot.
Another piece of faint praise; the movie was set in the 70’s and it not only had the look of that decade, I kept being struck by the fact that it ‘felt’ as if it had been filmed in the 70’s... You tell me if that’s a good thing or not.
Toby Jones plays feisty little spy Percy who acts like he’s in charge and can do whatever he wants. In the latter part of the film, the others start talking about Allaline; ”Where is Allaline? Did you meet with Allaline?” I had no idea who Allaline was until the credits rolled and they revealed that Percy’s last name was Allaline.
The film becomes a horrible parade of one bland float after another with no cohesive story being put together until the final scenes – and then, whether it was due to indifference or lack of surprise, I really didn’t care who the mole was, I just wanted this movie to end.
I tried to watch closely, to pay attention to the clues so I could cleverly tell my wife and ex-teacher why everything that happened in the movie happened – but along the way, I simply lost interest.
An espionage thriller? Not hardly – it’s just about a bunch of whining English twits that start bawling like babies when they’re outted as traitors to her majesty.
SHERLOCK HOLMES 2 : Game Of Shadows
“SHERLOCK HOLMES 2 : Game Of Shadows” (Robert Downey, Jr. & Jude Law)
I could take the easy way out and tell you just to scroll back to my review of the first installment of ‘Sherlock Holmes’ with Robert and Jude because the similarities are prominent. Being a sequel makes this the lesser film because it’s simply a matter of ‘been there, seen that’.
Once again, the culprit for what hurts the movie is director Guy Ritchie – Can we PLEASE get someone else to take over this franchise? And if not, then let’s kill it before he drags the good name of No Poop Sherlock down into the slow-motion pit of shame where it will die an ugly, though exceedingly l-o-n-g death...
Once again, Downey & Law provide the only entertainment value in the film – despite the irritating slo-mo for no reason and the fact that most of Holmes’ brilliant deductions come from figuring out how to win a fistfight before it actually begins instead of making clever deductions from the clues left in a room as to who was there and what they were doing – The Holmes-Watson relationship remains fun to watch. And a lot of that credit I feel has to go to Robert as his subtle English accent is so dead on you couldn’t tell which of the two actors was the actual Englishman. Usually I’m praising English or Australian actors for their ability to adopt ‘American’ accents so it’s nice to be able to throw some accolades to one of ‘our’ thespians.
One problem I had with the first was the casting of Rachael McAdams as Holmes’ love interest. Here, Rachel disappears early after making several ‘Why did she do that?’ moves in her opening scenes. I kept waiting for her to reappear to explain herself, but in typical Guy Ritchie fashion that never happens. Guy and bad story-telling do seem to go hand-in-hand.
Sherlock’s #1 nemesis, Professor Moriarty should have elevated this story to a higher level of entertainment value, but no, when it comes time for the Professor to confess his evil plan to Holmes just before killing him, thus giving Watson enough time to swoop in and save the day, we are told that Moriarty’s reason for devising his latest devilish scheme is to ‘sell bandages’. Sorry for the spoiler – but maybe it isn’t really THAT stupid - perhaps I just made that up to conceal the true evil plot of that maniacal criminal genius of literature. Yes, I must have, not even the annoying filmmaker Guy Ritchie would stoop so low as to make Professor Moriarty nothing more than a salesman for Band-Aids*.
*Band-Aids is a registered trademark and should not be included in this review by penalty of law.
Okay, pretend you didn’t read that part about Band... er, uh, ‘Ow-ie patches’...
The stuff that worked / the addition of Watson’s bride, whom Holmes throws from a speeding train – It would initially seem just to get rid of her so he and his ‘bud’ can continue to fight crime without female interference.
The stuff that didn’t work / the addition of Holmes’ brother Mycroft; although I didn’t have a problem with him until the extremely overweight broken nosed actor that played him did one scene completely nude. There was no reason for it, other than Ritchie thinking it would be hilarious to show an unattractive fat guy walking around his house naked while having a tea and crumpets with Mrs. Watson.
Noomi Rapace plays a gypsy woman (Of Curtis Mayfield fame) who warns Holmes that he has the mark of the werewolf upon the palm of his hand – No wait, that’s from the original ‘Wolfman’ with Lon Chaney – but, I digress...
I have nothing bad to say about the addition of Rapace – nor did she bring much in the way of interest to the table. Let’s just blame that on the director too and make it a clean sweep, eh?
I said it at the end of my review of ‘SH 1’ and I’ll repeat it here – If there’s a sequel, I’ll be there as long as Guy Ritchie is NOT involved!
I could take the easy way out and tell you just to scroll back to my review of the first installment of ‘Sherlock Holmes’ with Robert and Jude because the similarities are prominent. Being a sequel makes this the lesser film because it’s simply a matter of ‘been there, seen that’.
Once again, the culprit for what hurts the movie is director Guy Ritchie – Can we PLEASE get someone else to take over this franchise? And if not, then let’s kill it before he drags the good name of No Poop Sherlock down into the slow-motion pit of shame where it will die an ugly, though exceedingly l-o-n-g death...
Once again, Downey & Law provide the only entertainment value in the film – despite the irritating slo-mo for no reason and the fact that most of Holmes’ brilliant deductions come from figuring out how to win a fistfight before it actually begins instead of making clever deductions from the clues left in a room as to who was there and what they were doing – The Holmes-Watson relationship remains fun to watch. And a lot of that credit I feel has to go to Robert as his subtle English accent is so dead on you couldn’t tell which of the two actors was the actual Englishman. Usually I’m praising English or Australian actors for their ability to adopt ‘American’ accents so it’s nice to be able to throw some accolades to one of ‘our’ thespians.
One problem I had with the first was the casting of Rachael McAdams as Holmes’ love interest. Here, Rachel disappears early after making several ‘Why did she do that?’ moves in her opening scenes. I kept waiting for her to reappear to explain herself, but in typical Guy Ritchie fashion that never happens. Guy and bad story-telling do seem to go hand-in-hand.
Sherlock’s #1 nemesis, Professor Moriarty should have elevated this story to a higher level of entertainment value, but no, when it comes time for the Professor to confess his evil plan to Holmes just before killing him, thus giving Watson enough time to swoop in and save the day, we are told that Moriarty’s reason for devising his latest devilish scheme is to ‘sell bandages’. Sorry for the spoiler – but maybe it isn’t really THAT stupid - perhaps I just made that up to conceal the true evil plot of that maniacal criminal genius of literature. Yes, I must have, not even the annoying filmmaker Guy Ritchie would stoop so low as to make Professor Moriarty nothing more than a salesman for Band-Aids*.
*Band-Aids is a registered trademark and should not be included in this review by penalty of law.
Okay, pretend you didn’t read that part about Band... er, uh, ‘Ow-ie patches’...
The stuff that worked / the addition of Watson’s bride, whom Holmes throws from a speeding train – It would initially seem just to get rid of her so he and his ‘bud’ can continue to fight crime without female interference.
The stuff that didn’t work / the addition of Holmes’ brother Mycroft; although I didn’t have a problem with him until the extremely overweight broken nosed actor that played him did one scene completely nude. There was no reason for it, other than Ritchie thinking it would be hilarious to show an unattractive fat guy walking around his house naked while having a tea and crumpets with Mrs. Watson.
Noomi Rapace plays a gypsy woman (Of Curtis Mayfield fame) who warns Holmes that he has the mark of the werewolf upon the palm of his hand – No wait, that’s from the original ‘Wolfman’ with Lon Chaney – but, I digress...
I have nothing bad to say about the addition of Rapace – nor did she bring much in the way of interest to the table. Let’s just blame that on the director too and make it a clean sweep, eh?
I said it at the end of my review of ‘SH 1’ and I’ll repeat it here – If there’s a sequel, I’ll be there as long as Guy Ritchie is NOT involved!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
WAR HORSE
“WAR HORSE” (Jeremy Irvine, Peter Mullen & Emily Watson)
Any critic that doesn’t give “War Horse” a glowing review is a soulless creature without a heart. This is a wonderful film, the type that used to win Best Picture Oscars before they decided to start giving trophies to lesser stories just to be ‘fashionable’ (I’m talking crap like “Slumdog Millionaire” and the over-rated “Hurt Locker”)
“War Horse” is an epic story; well made and well told. it included some scenes that were hard to watch but almost every scene (after the initial ‘introducing the characters’ beginning) contained a memorable moment, or what I would call a ‘nice touch’.
I would compare it to a little gem I loved called “Paulie”. If you haven’t seen it, and you liked “War Horse”, make it your next rental choice.
“Paulie” was a simple story about a special little bird and his quest to find the young girl he was taken from by a jealous father.
“War Horse” is the story of a remarkable equine and is told in a grandiose style spanning the length of World War I. I can only fathom that anyone who has a bad thing to say about this film is P.O.’d because the Americans aren’t given credit for helping the British win the war. But, my over zealous patriotic Americans, the movie isn’t about America or Great Britain for that matter – it’s about Joey - the horse that would never give up hope of finding his lost master. Like “Paulie”, Joey was separated from the human that cared for him by an ungrateful father, who sold him to the British army.
Jeremy Irvine plays Albert ‘Alby’ Narracott, who, after witnessing ‘Joey’ being born, becomes infatuated with the colt.
For some unknown reason (one of the films few flaws) Jeremy’s father, Ted (Peter Mullen) buys Joey at an auction – spending more than twice what the horse was worth, just to one-up his landlord, Mr. Lyons (David Thewlis)
Rosie, meticulously played by Emily Watson, is Alby’s mother and she is furious with her drunken sot of a husband for spending the rent money on a horse that can’t plow. Albert insists that he’ll train Joey to be a usable workhorse and Rosie agrees to keep the animal.
Under the watchful eye of the Narracott’s ‘Watch-Goose’, Albert develops a bond with the thoroughbred, allowing his young owner to place a harness around his neck in an attempt to plow the Narracott’s rocky pasture.
Even after Joey and Alby prove their worth, Ted, a truly worthless, drunken gimp, sells Joey to the British Calvary – specifically, to a young Captain (Tom Hiddleston) who promises Albert that when the war is over he will do everything in his power to return Joey to his rightful owner.
Joey befriends the regiments’ commander’s horse, whose original name I didn’t catch.
Since he was a black horse, I called him ‘Sham’ (expertly played by Sarah Jessica Parker)
At first it seems as though the older horse takes the younger under his wing until Joey proves he is the fastest, toughest and bravest horse in camp. One of those ‘special moments’ occurs when Sham is summoned to help pull an enormous cannon to the top of a hill and Joey intervenes to save his friend.
There are so many of those heart-tugging moments in this film that to list them all would spoil it.
I do have a question for my readers, though – if anyone can explain to me why the German’s left Joey & Sham in the windmill after punishing Gunter & Mikael, I’d appreciate it, as it left me a bit baffled.
And another item that both my wife & I wondered about – It seemed that the two German boys – Gunter & Mikael switched names from the first time they were introduced – Was anyone else confused by that, or were we not paying close enough attention?
The moments were both sweet – French girl Emily, after renaming the pair of horses Francois and Claude, tries to teach Joey (Francois) how to jump over a fence and Joey either does what the girl does, or cheats his way around the blockade.
It had already been established that Joey/Francois DOES NOT jump.
And other moments were dreadful – very difficult to watch. I know they used computers to make it seem as though Joey ran through barbed wire fence after barbed wire fence until he was thrown to the ground after doing a complete somersault, but boy, that was painful to view – congrates to the special effects dept. for making that look horribly realistic.
A German soldier, put in charge of ‘captured’ soldiers Joey & Sham says, “It’s a pity they found you.”
I liked the fact that they made some of the ‘evil’ Germans appear human – this was a man who obviously loved horses and was more than likely forced into the war.
Not every person on the ‘wrong’ side was bad just as not every soldier on the ‘good’ side was angelical.
The two soldiers that meet in ‘No Man’s Land’ to save Joey from the barbed wire that would have torn him to shreds if he struggled while they tried to free him was another ‘moment’ that left a lump in my throat.
I even inserted my own special moments – When the Lieutenant from Devon (Charlie, I think – there were a LOT of characters that came & went) was rescued by Albert during a fierce battle, I thought he should have told Alby the name of the girl that was in the car with him when Alby discovered Joey didn’t jump fences.... Alby had asked him earlier for her name and he arrogantly answered, “I don’t recall – there’ve been so many women in my life.”
Incredible film – An epic – And if it wins best picture, despite all of the lame brained critics that have panned it, it will be a well deserved award.
Oh, and thanks, Emily's Grandpa, for turning that lump in my throat into tears streaming down my face like the little girly-man that I apparently am...
Any critic that doesn’t give “War Horse” a glowing review is a soulless creature without a heart. This is a wonderful film, the type that used to win Best Picture Oscars before they decided to start giving trophies to lesser stories just to be ‘fashionable’ (I’m talking crap like “Slumdog Millionaire” and the over-rated “Hurt Locker”)
“War Horse” is an epic story; well made and well told. it included some scenes that were hard to watch but almost every scene (after the initial ‘introducing the characters’ beginning) contained a memorable moment, or what I would call a ‘nice touch’.
I would compare it to a little gem I loved called “Paulie”. If you haven’t seen it, and you liked “War Horse”, make it your next rental choice.
“Paulie” was a simple story about a special little bird and his quest to find the young girl he was taken from by a jealous father.
“War Horse” is the story of a remarkable equine and is told in a grandiose style spanning the length of World War I. I can only fathom that anyone who has a bad thing to say about this film is P.O.’d because the Americans aren’t given credit for helping the British win the war. But, my over zealous patriotic Americans, the movie isn’t about America or Great Britain for that matter – it’s about Joey - the horse that would never give up hope of finding his lost master. Like “Paulie”, Joey was separated from the human that cared for him by an ungrateful father, who sold him to the British army.
Jeremy Irvine plays Albert ‘Alby’ Narracott, who, after witnessing ‘Joey’ being born, becomes infatuated with the colt.
For some unknown reason (one of the films few flaws) Jeremy’s father, Ted (Peter Mullen) buys Joey at an auction – spending more than twice what the horse was worth, just to one-up his landlord, Mr. Lyons (David Thewlis)
Rosie, meticulously played by Emily Watson, is Alby’s mother and she is furious with her drunken sot of a husband for spending the rent money on a horse that can’t plow. Albert insists that he’ll train Joey to be a usable workhorse and Rosie agrees to keep the animal.
Under the watchful eye of the Narracott’s ‘Watch-Goose’, Albert develops a bond with the thoroughbred, allowing his young owner to place a harness around his neck in an attempt to plow the Narracott’s rocky pasture.
Even after Joey and Alby prove their worth, Ted, a truly worthless, drunken gimp, sells Joey to the British Calvary – specifically, to a young Captain (Tom Hiddleston) who promises Albert that when the war is over he will do everything in his power to return Joey to his rightful owner.
Joey befriends the regiments’ commander’s horse, whose original name I didn’t catch.
Since he was a black horse, I called him ‘Sham’ (expertly played by Sarah Jessica Parker)
At first it seems as though the older horse takes the younger under his wing until Joey proves he is the fastest, toughest and bravest horse in camp. One of those ‘special moments’ occurs when Sham is summoned to help pull an enormous cannon to the top of a hill and Joey intervenes to save his friend.
There are so many of those heart-tugging moments in this film that to list them all would spoil it.
I do have a question for my readers, though – if anyone can explain to me why the German’s left Joey & Sham in the windmill after punishing Gunter & Mikael, I’d appreciate it, as it left me a bit baffled.
And another item that both my wife & I wondered about – It seemed that the two German boys – Gunter & Mikael switched names from the first time they were introduced – Was anyone else confused by that, or were we not paying close enough attention?
The moments were both sweet – French girl Emily, after renaming the pair of horses Francois and Claude, tries to teach Joey (Francois) how to jump over a fence and Joey either does what the girl does, or cheats his way around the blockade.
It had already been established that Joey/Francois DOES NOT jump.
And other moments were dreadful – very difficult to watch. I know they used computers to make it seem as though Joey ran through barbed wire fence after barbed wire fence until he was thrown to the ground after doing a complete somersault, but boy, that was painful to view – congrates to the special effects dept. for making that look horribly realistic.
A German soldier, put in charge of ‘captured’ soldiers Joey & Sham says, “It’s a pity they found you.”
I liked the fact that they made some of the ‘evil’ Germans appear human – this was a man who obviously loved horses and was more than likely forced into the war.
Not every person on the ‘wrong’ side was bad just as not every soldier on the ‘good’ side was angelical.
The two soldiers that meet in ‘No Man’s Land’ to save Joey from the barbed wire that would have torn him to shreds if he struggled while they tried to free him was another ‘moment’ that left a lump in my throat.
I even inserted my own special moments – When the Lieutenant from Devon (Charlie, I think – there were a LOT of characters that came & went) was rescued by Albert during a fierce battle, I thought he should have told Alby the name of the girl that was in the car with him when Alby discovered Joey didn’t jump fences.... Alby had asked him earlier for her name and he arrogantly answered, “I don’t recall – there’ve been so many women in my life.”
Incredible film – An epic – And if it wins best picture, despite all of the lame brained critics that have panned it, it will be a well deserved award.
Oh, and thanks, Emily's Grandpa, for turning that lump in my throat into tears streaming down my face like the little girly-man that I apparently am...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)