Seen any good films lately? [3]

Have to say chaps, "Mission Impossible Fallout" was rather spiffing Actually
It was a dam good film & had me on the edge of my seat once or twice &, I only do that if I need the loo but want to see what happens next. Tom Cruise & the "team" blended in so well this time that it didn't feel it was just Tom Cruise & the rest were secondary. Fast paced action, of course, one or two "as if!" moments, Simon Pegg & his amazing Dancing bear, no! his amazing gadgets Do like the New Girl on the Block, Rebecca Fergusson, who plays biker chic Ilsa Faust. No nonsense, wont take shit kinda girl who just gets on with it. One boo boo I noticed was, poor Ilsa got a good beating by some cad of a man & yet next shot she didn't have so much as a bruise yet moments earlier said cad punched her in the face. I prefer MI to James Bond these days. Tho I perked up when Daniel Craig cracked the whip. Not because he's a hunk but the films seemed better with him.

I almost went to see that: in fact I DID go to see it.  I had a trial membership to moviepass, made it to the theatre, only to find out they didn't have it available on the app, and this was weeks after the release.  Hacked off enough I walked out without buying a full price ticket. Cancelling moviepass.

{{ I saw it with the better half, same night I later watched A Night to Remember- one of them was really good!

(Ok MI: Insert Random Adjective/Noun Here isn't bad, just seemed very generic to me,good stunts and stuff but the plot was taped on the side- in fact couple weeks later couldn't even tell you what the plot was supposed to be, still remember some of the stunts though. }}}

There's hints of sexuality still, but, you know, dumb kid stuff and hormones gone awry.

Mostly quite innocent. The movie's directed by Bo Burnham, a comedian-musician of my generation who made a name for himself on Youtube.

watched Jumanji 2. it was better than I expected.

Mrs Figg wrote:watched Jumanji 2. it was better than I expected.

I rather enjoyed that (was a very good pick for a first date with my GF ) generic, but solid family fun that didn't retread the first film too much.

I saw "Avengers Infinity Wars" & Im still picking out the bones from that one. Too much crash bang wallop, no real story apart from a weak "we need to get stones before..." Big baddie with slight digital resemblance to Matt Damon confused me the most.

Spoiler:

  Don't be alarmed folks, all is not over, Dr Strange has a trick up his glittery bracelet arms & Lo ! the team will be back, they have to be, they've probably signed 100 yr contracts

watched a film that I thoroughly enjoyed. Lucy by Luc Besson. it was fantastic.

I like Luc Besson, though I'm always annoyed by the "only use 10% of our brain's capacity" tripe.  Would be fun to see that.

Rob Roy popped up on the telly, and not having seen it for a good decade I watched and was impelled to look up his history. There's honestly not much there, no clear reason why he became a folk hero. I think the writers did a bang up job concocting a story that's worth watching. But why would someone who basically did nothing of note that I can tell end up being such a folk hero, with poems and plays written about him?

{{{ Blame Queen Victoria Haly- she got enamoured with Highlands so the rest of England did too- and for a whle it was the trendy popular thing ad as such writers and artists of the day were suddenly looking for Highland vistas to paint and Highland stories to write about.
Rob Roy had got some minor attention prior, manly due to his involvement with the Jacobite revolution, but when Sir Walter Scott decided to make a book about him it capitulated this weird legend of the heroic, romantic Rob Roy. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ but when Sir Walter Scott decided to make a book about him it capitulated this weird legend of the heroic, romantic Rob Roy. }}

That's where I first met him, and that's enough of an explanation for me. For some reason I pulled a dusty old copy of Ivanhoe off the shelf when I was 11 or 12 and instantly fell in love with Scott's storytelling. I read Rob Roy soon after, not considering or caring if he was a historical character or not, like his Robin of Locksley in Ivanhoe. He really had a handle on writing outlaw folk heroes that could capture the imagination.

Speaking of folk heroes, what about all the stories, songs, books and movies about Jesse James for example, or Bonnie and Clyde? There's not much meat on the historical truth of their lives, but their folk hero status is pretty hard to challenge.

{{{ The sentence of mine you highlight Dave is a good example of why you should always double-check spell checkers! Otherwise get into a scrap and all your catapults might just capitulate on you!! }}}

I suppose anyone who sticks it to the Man with some flair has a fair shake at becoming a folk hero.

{{ I think one of the more interesting aspects with Rob Roy is normally folk heroes dont become so in their own lifetime- in fact Rob Roys Royal pardon was a direct result of him being immortalised by Daniel Defoe in, "The Highland Rogue" which despite Rob Roy still being alive was only loosely based on reality and was almost entirely fictional, but in 1792 it was so popular Rob got pardoned and lived out the remainder of his days peacefully as a legend in his own lifetime. Scott's work in 1818, which owed far more to Defoe's romanticised Robin Hood type version of events than actual history, cemented the legend and Queen Victoria obsession with all things Scottish ensured a wide audience, globally, as it was the height of the Empire upon which the sun never set.

But his life was interesting enough I think without the need for the romance- it would be nice to see a historical based film on him.
After all the basic story underpinning all the versions is accurate- he borrowed money from Montrose, got robbed by his own head drover (cattle herder) lost the money, Montrose took everything as payment, lands, family members ect and Rob went rogue, started a criminal campaign against Montrose of cattle rustling and theft, including a sizeable haul of £300 worth of rent money. But its in the details the differences lie, such as its worth noting he also expanded his criminal empire and  become a sort of Highland Mafia boss, extending his raids to neighbouring landowners to Montrose demanding protection money, which is not exactly in the Robin Hood mould!
But this made him friends with the Campbells of Argyll, particualry the Duke of Argyll in Inveraray who hated Montrose with a passion.

Rob was however then in a bit of a torn loyalties position when it came to the Jacobite revolution, as a Highlander he was on the Jacobite side, but the Duke of Argyll and the Campbells were on the Government side.
Rob claimed in later life he was secretly working for the Duke of Argyll all along and was never really a Jacobite, but there is no physical evidence of this and the Government officially branded him a traitor when the Jacobite cause failed, adding to his already existing outlaw, thief status.
A lot of historians for some reason dont seem to believe that he was secretly working for Argyll, but I think he was if only because he was sheltered from prosecution by holing up near Inveraray, seat of the Duke of Argyll.
And I dont see  Argyll just waving aside Rob's joining the rebel cause just Because he likes him and has a shared dislike of Montrose. A lot of Campbells were dead fighting the rebels.

After all this and another minor involvement with the remnants of the Jacobite he finally settled down. By now stories about him had already grown in the telling, with deeds attributed to him that never happened. And then Defoe set him down in his tale as the romantic, roguish hero archetype, sticking it to the man as Halfy would say.
Rob of course did not go out of his way to correct the record, his fame as a folk hero had just got him a pardon of a death sentence, so you wouldn't dispute it really. Plus I suspect he was quite happy to let everyone believe the legend and no doubt played up to it.

also side note on the film- wish they'd cast an actual Scot in the lead, Liam does ok but his Highland accent slips back into Irish brogue more than once. But thought John Hurt was great as Montrose. }}

Petty wrote:Rob was however then in a bit of a torn loyalties position when it came to the Jacobite revolution, as a Highlander he was on the Jacobite side, but the Duke of Argyll and the Campbells were on the Government side.
Rob claimed in later life he was secretly working for the Duke of Argyll all along and was never really a Jacobite, but there is no physical evidence of this and the Government officially branded him a traitor when the Jacobite cause failed, adding to his already existing outlaw, thief status.
A lot of historians for some reason dont seem to believe that he was secretly working for Argyll, but I think he was if only because he was sheltered from prosecution by holing up near Inveraray, seat of the Duke of Argyll.

Sounds like the makings of a good antihero spaghetti western to me.
Just like Clint in "A Fist Full of Dollars" -- "The Baxters on one side and the Rojos on the other and me in the middle. A man could get rich in a town like this"

{{Thats an interesting take on it for a dramatic presentation of the story Dave   A classic Highland tale told and shot  in the style of a spaghetti Western.}}

Well the makers of Rob Roy the film pitched it as a Scottish Western.

watched Robert Downey jnr as Sherlock, the first film, quite entertaining, although he mumbles a bit, maybe he had problems with the accent. I had avoided it for years because you know, Brett, but it was very atmospheric and London looked great. Not keen on him being obviously hetero and very scruffy, but not bad at all.

That...was......hilarious !

{{Im a big fan of his stuff, sadly the person behind it has not been at all well, and the output has been erratic as an understandable result- but what is out there deserves more exposure.
He reviews films, tv, games, even year reviews, and they all crack me up}}

Not a film Ive seen but, saw the trailer & noticed what an eerie job they did of Dirk Bogarde's eyes at 0.19. looks very creepy !

Watched Venom, Meg and The Predator last night.

Venom was good the other two were average.

{{ Saw Mary Poppins returns. Odd one to review really. Its not good, its not bad. But  it is interesting.

Firstly there is so much craft and passion on show here, and I do mean craft- the recreations of Cherry Tree Lane and the Banks house, the actual bank itself, the look and feel of the London skyline ect are all passionate tribute to the look and feel of the original film. There is an effort here to genuinely honour the original. And that's also its biggest problem.

Technically this is a sequel- the original Banks children are grown up, the boy is now a father of two children of his own and their mother has died. The main plot concerns a devious plot by the bank which Banks snr worked at in the original to get the Banks family house because they have fallen into debt- their ability to pay relies on finding a document that proves Banks Snr had shares in the bank worth a fortune- a document which they have lost.
But that's a problem too as if you don't spot where the shares document is hidden in plain sight throughout the film then you must have had your eyes closed during the scene its blatantly set up in. Its painfully obvious which makes any tension generated around their attempts to find it and subsequently failures to do so as the clock ticks down lacking in any actual tension, as you know they are eventually going to notice the obvious and where it is eventually-which they duly do with just a few minutes left to save the day.

And this is the films core problem. You see in the original the children felt isolated from their parents- the mother was giving all her time to the suffragettes cause, the father was so stressed and taken up with his work the children felt they just got in his way and made him angry- the parents had lost touch with what was important, particularly Banks snr who had lost touch with his inner child. So the journey, and the intervention in the original film Mary takes them on had a purpose and the ending felt earned.
In this the main plot about the shares mcgufin is just that, a mcguffin, an excuse to have Mary return and have adventures- but they dont mean anything to the main plot. There is a replacement for the emotional separation of the original in the new film- the emotional impact of the loss of the mother on the family- but apart from one song, probably the best in the film, about losing but not forgetting people, it doesn't actually play into the rest of the film in any real way and the events that occur don't in turn feed back into that theme either in any real way. 
There is a line at the end given by the balloon seller to Mr Banks- that he has forgotten how to be a child- but its not earned- he has been worried and stressed, and he snaps at the kids once or twice but as he is the kid from the original grown up he is never distant from his own kids, or unemotional with them like his own father was in the original film. That line would have made sense said to the original Mr Banks, it doesn't with his son in this film because the main story doesn't have Mary affecting anything in a meaningful way. Its not about reconciliation in the way the original was.
So throughout the film everything that happens, no matter how imaginative or well done feels like filler. Giving it a dispensable feeling.

So the main plot lacks any real tension because the resolution is so obviously set up for it at the start and you know they will find it and all will be fine and the events that do happen aren't really going anywhere meaningful regards the characters, just the shares mcguffin. The other main issue is that despite this being a sequel, its also a remake/reboot at the same time- which is an odd choice.

The whole film is damn near beat for beat the same as the original film- chalk painting scene becomes a glazed bowl scene, everyone floating about laughing becomes Topsy-turvy- a cousin of Mary's whose world turns upside down once a week. Chimney sweeps are just swapped out for almost identical in function lamp lighters. The bird lady for a balloon seller lady. Every original song has a contemporary equivalent at the same place in the film and in the same beat in the story.
Now to a degree this would be fine, it gives a feel almost identical to the original- almost because, and here's the bit I found fascinating and weird, everything is the same except Mary Poppins.
And I dont just mean the actor has changed- its treated as a sequel, Mary is treated as being the same character returning, yet the performance is markedly different from that of Andrews original.
For a start the strict is more strict, the accent is so cut glass and every syllable to crisply enunciated it becomes almost painful to listen to after a while. And whilst there are a few moments where you see the mischievous twinkle in the eye of Andrews original its less obvious and charming than before because of the demeanour and speech patterns. And because the look, feel, and tone of everything else is so painfully recreated from the original the central character being played so differently stands out all the more.

I always liked Mary Poppins as a character- she always gave me the impression of being the spirit of the London blitz in human form- the most ridiculous, extraordinary, life changing events can be going on around you, but pish-posh stuff and nonsense, you get on with things as if they weren't extraordinary even while you they are happening all around you.

And whilst this is still true to a certain degree of Blunt's interpretation of Mary as I find her less likeable than Andrews version it doesn't come over as well. She feels more stand-offish and less approachable than the original.

The other issue is the songs- not they are bad you will get through them relatively pain free, and some, the lamp lighters set piece for example you will mainly spend reminiscing on how much of a tribute it is to the chimney sweep set piece in the original- problem is the original had a really memorable tune to go with it, the new one doesn't. And I found this to be true of them all- as I write this I could not hum you a single tune from the new film, I cant remember how any of the songs go off the top of my head or any lyrics- but I can still hum you supercalifragilisticexpialidocious song or chim-chiminney-chee, or tuppence for the birds or lets go fly a kite.
And that's also an issue for a musical- the songs are functional and in tribute to the originals but without their style, catchiness, or imagination. And worse with the exception of the loss song they don't feel like they have much wider thematic meaning to the narrative. They are just harmless songs, reminiscent in style of the better originals.

So as I said to begin with, I didn't think it was bad- its made with passion and enthusiasm for the subject that is evident on screen, the performances are all good, especially Wishart who brings a reality to his characters plight that I actually found to be genuinely affecting in a few scenes and which gives the film its entire grounding, and the sets and look are spot on in every way- unlike say the jarring experience you'd get going from PJ's TH films into his LotR's- you could watch this and the original back to back and were it not for the change of Mary it would feel like a natural, fitting sequel. It would not jar the senses going from one to the other or feel inconsistent- and that's a real achievement.

But its not good either for all the reasons I give above. So as a cinema experience I found it more intellectually interesting and curious than I did entertaining or enthralling or engaging as a film. And for a film that should whisk you away on a magical adventure of wonder and pathos that's not so good. }}