steve_jm_kidd Reviews

Welcome to Marwen (2018)

Original, tragic, redemptive, funny, and technially brilliant

[9/10 · 11 January 2019]

I regret to say I've read the critics don't like this, ergo I want to loeap to its defence, and hope this does not colour my objectivity. The critics like Roma. From the get get go this film quickly captured my imagination and maintained it more or less throughout. I identify with a person who lives alone and may be perceived as eccentric, one who desires love, and feels pain. Steve Carol knocks this out of the park. In many ways it's sexy, you might not understand that, but don't diss it if you don't comprehend. The best thing is it describes emotions in a fantastical world, like Big Fish it delves into what is and what isn't what could be and what you want it to be, and stretches intrigue into causes and effects. One of the best films of 2018.

Colette (I) (2018)

Worth the watch

[7/10 · 10 January 2019]

Should you watch this film? I would say yes. If you saw Big Eyes, it's the same story with a few sexual angles. Dominic West does a perfect Kenneth Branagh Poirot, I consider it reasonably well put together, Kiera Knightly does exactly what she does in every film set 100 years or more ago, and one might almost get some insight into why people would behave the way they do in such situations. I'm not sure it is an empowering film, as the females and underlings seem to get a pretty poor deal, without any satisfying righteous vengeance but... I drivel on. You will know after 30 minutes if you will like it, but I think you have to give it more than 15 for it to get into it's swing. If you want a really fascinating exploration of sexuality and can only afford one film this month, never mind this or The Favourite (both good), watch Welcome To Marwen.

Roma (2018)

Relieved that I'm not alone in turning this off

[5/10 · 9 January 2019]

After 48 minutes I had to make a decision - weather or not to spend another 90 minutes seeing this film out, after all, it won the Golden Lion in Venice, Is in the favourites list for an Oscar, it is critically acclaimed. I wasn't hating it, it's just that I felt I would have enjoyed rerunning Arrested Development, Archer, The Good Place, or any amount of stuff on Netflix and got more out of it. Call me chicken (Cacaw, cacaw), but I was dreading reading overwhelming positive reviews telling me what a phillistine I was. Like other touted films over the last few years, If you liked Boyhood and Moonlight you will love this. But I didn't, perhaps it strikes a chord with some, but this kind of film is not as extraordinary as the life which we are a part of. Story and characters are the thing, and no amount of cinematography can make up for lack of them.

The House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018)

Meh!

[4/10 · 24 September 2018]

Sat this one out, probably only because I wanted to kill a Sunday night and there were no other options available. Jack Black is Jack Black, The child made Daniel Radcliffe in HP1 look like Dustin Hoffman, and what was Kate Winslett doing in this??? Animal fart jokes abound, stock characters, predictable arc, reliance on 'magic' for plot movement and corny dialogue for humour. On the plus side it had it's jumpy moments, but it was more 'these are scary images, this is scary music, forget about what happened five minutes ago, this is what's happening now'. Spoiler alert: "There is only one rule" ... hey guess which rule gets broken? I think you might be better off asking a ten year old of this film's enjoyability quotient.

Lady Bird (2017)

I didn't like David Copperfield either!

[5/10 · 19 January 2018]

Please somebody tell me why I should like three lauded films from the last four years, namely, Boyhood, Moonlight, and Lady Bird.

Regarding the latter: At second favourite to land the Oscar I watched 40 minutes of it and was going to go to bed early - at least it wasn't the three hours that I wasted waiting for Boyhood to spring into life.

The thing is, there are so many alternatives. Saoirse Ronan? Watch Brooklyn, Wrong side of the tracks in the US? Watch the blisteringly funny, informative, and engaging I Tonya (and go Alison Janney for Best Supporting Actress). Fantasy? Watch Wonderwoman, as good a DC/Marvel film as has been yet released, absolutely repairing and polishing the dull flaws of Batman v Superman (And please don't tell me that Lady Bird is not complete utter and total fantasy). Love? Their Finest, The Shape Of Water. Comedy? The Disaster Artist. Cinematography (The Shape Of Water again - what a film). I have not even watched Dunkirk, The Post or a number of new films yet. Three Billboards OEM is deservedly hot favourite to win the Oscar, it is just everything you would expect from Martin McDonagh v The Coen brothers featuring Micky Knox broke good, Tyrion Lannister, Marge Gunderson's alternate self and the truly watchable Sam Rockwell doing what he does best even better, but please (back to Lady Bird), whoever it is that cannot recognise an appeal to some idealised sassy existence that you will never have and nobody ever had, stop fobbing us off with these imaginary bildungsromans, especially ones which try to engender some pity for Yanks who live in houses bigger than mine and have never walked to the shop.

I'm sorry if this seems harsh, I have tried to offer positive alternatives. It is by no means uneasy on the eye, but we live in an age when we are saturated with great media to rise above, and, just like David Copperfield, it just seems a little self indulgent as a self-penned hagiography.

Rent (2005)

Not everybody's cup of tea - but it IS mine

[10/10 · 2 December 2016]

I read this has not had entirely glowing reviews, and having watched it for a third time I feel compelled to counter that negativity.

I have never been as blubbery during a film! As I remember I loved it, but had forgotten quite how much. I have become more familiar with all the songs, and I guess these had everything to do with it. What this film does is, I believe, not just capture the essence of the musical, it magnifies it. Musicals tend to aim at two showstoppers, one for the end of each half, numbers which leave you absolutely and totally in awe, making you stand up and cheer and clap and saying "wow that's the best thing I have ever seen". In Rent it seems like every song is a showstopper. As the chords for each one chime in with the recognition it is like a new delight, like when you watch Jersey Boys you think at the end of the first half there can't be any more great songs left in the catalogue but you are left open mouthed at the strength and depth. Wowzer! So, songs apart, 'cos tunes alone can't carry a movie.. The story is kind of unremarkable. That is not a negative, what I'm trying to say it is a tried and trusted formula, which is conducted more than adequately; this has a great deal more in common with I Daniel Blake than might be intuitively considered, SPOLER ALERT, employing the tried and trusted trope of the exploited underdogs overcoming the man and their own demons through bravery, initiative and unity against the odds. It is not happy endings all round, but there is resolution in a conclusion that garners ones thoughts, sympathy and fundamental satisfaction (I didn't say happiness there!). As for the dramatis personae, each single one of those eight people stood on the stage at the beginning has got it going' on, each one has a narrative that is a feast, arching through the whole film that had me hooked from the back-lit silhouettes and that simple piano. Look - I know, this is no way going to be everybody's cup of tea - but it IS mine, absolutely, totally hook line and sinker. It's in my top ten. It's in my top six. It will fade, but I just know that cosied up on that Friday night all on my lonely self and indulging myself in a coconut, a mango and a bottle of Chianti and this heart rending tragedy I have rarely, if ever, enjoyed a film as much. And if you get offended because I say that's 'gay', well I pity you.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

One hundred and eighty thousand dollar vanity project

[24 November 2016]

The J.K. Rowling backlash starts right here, but it should have started a long time ago. J.K. Rowling is a wonderful story teller, absolutely. . But... How do you measure excellence in the arts? Well, there's the rub, because there is no quantitative measure, it's all generally subjective, so basically within science 2+2 make 4, and Mt Everest is just over 8,000 metres high, but really the only number we can put on a Jackson Pollack painting is how much somebody will pay for it, the only number we can put on a film is how many people go to see it. Without doubt zeitgeist, the emotions of one's contemporaries effects perceptions - why the hell do you think they put laugh tracks on TV programs?, what is advertising? What I am saying is we all 'go with the flow' Some perhaps more than others, but generally we just can't help smiling back if someone smiles at us. To capture the public's imagination I would suggest that, in general, it really helps if an artist has some talent to start with. There are many artists with some, if not immense talent. For recognition beyond one's own village however, the most important ingredient (with exceptions) is luck. Luck may manifest itself in many ways, but often it might be being in the right place at the right time. Elvis Presley was good, but really, if it hadn't been him it would have been some other young white kid with a twinkle in his eye who could sing black. It certainly wouldn't have been a black kid. Elvis presented a persona who was not at all dangerous yet people could pretend he was. Far from threatening white America he stole swathes of alt culture and assimilated it for the benefit of the ruling group. But I'd bet my bottom dollar he wasn't even the best singer in Tupelo. So back to J.K. Rowling. Quarter of a century ago she wrote The Philosopher's Stone. It was a great read. It was funny, imaginative, eminently 'readable', sufficiently complex to delight without being to obtuse to alienate, It had a character for everybody, It could be picked up and put down easily, would fit in a reasonable pocket, the goodies and baddies had recognisable demarcation, yet leaving just enough ambiguity in some, and it to the standard tried and tested trope of David and Goliath and ran with it quite exquisitely. Over her first three books Harry Potter became a global phenomenon, Elvis had competition, Rowling, was the kids, if not total literature market, and you know what? Good for her, 'cos those three books kept up the pace. The Prisoner of Azkaban nailed it. Now I delve into hypothesis. By the time of her fourth book Rowling was the absolute golden egg. She could do what she wanted. And I suggest what she wanted was greater editorial control, i.e. more of her writing left in, and, whereas the first three books would have had considerable editorial input, from professionals with vast experience in pruning work to present a more marketable product, by the time we get to Goblet of Fire, J.K Rowling, in addition to her undoubted talent had two more things going for her, the absolute undivided devotion of millions of fans (sources of revenue) and the consequent level of control over her work. And like any artist she was unlikely to think that her work could be improved by a mere muggle. Consequently the subsequent books became much larger, and, at least for me, a little unwieldy, because hell, she could do what she wanted. I'm not saying they were bad books, I'm saying that there will have been people at Bloomsbury secretly wishing, but NEVER admitting that they could perhaps just miss out a little bit here or fix a bit of continuity there. And then the film series.. And now Fantastic Beasts... It is one of the most expensive 60 films ever made, and it is, in effect a $180,000 dollar vanity project. Oh hell, I know there is a demand for it, and I'm not saying this is Ghostbusters 2016 or anything like that, I quite enjoyed it, but it is merely a moderate story populated by a cast that as individuals are sometimes interesting but more often padding for those that are. Newt Scamander is frankly boring, and the whole lingo/naming thing just seems a little trite. Granted the special effects are truly special, but give me Colin Farrell sitting on a Belgian bench with Brendan Gleeson any day over him watching some ball of smoke trashing entire avenues of New York. Fundamentally, in Harry Potter, we had personalities driving the stories. In this it is .. magic! That is not meant to be a compliment, it is a moan that the whole shebang seems like ""I know, let's put something here that is .. magic!, just wave a wand and .. say ""smoothinox fluffy flora"" .. and pow .. oh golly .. wide eyed wonderment .. cute critter ... yawn." Guess you've got to go and watch it, but if you know J.K. Rowling stop sucking up to her so much. She's great, but so are lots of people around her.

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Even better the second time around

[8/10 · 18 October 2016]

A good, modern, film by numbers. There are no unsurprising surprises, the characters are all pretty much stock-in-trade, the outcome not unpredictable and the baddie does have a 'magic wand, make my monster grow' moment. So don't go and see it if you seek novelty. On the other hand if you want to see a slew of actors at the top of their game playing gnarly old stagers who are hard as feck, shooting bad guys, you can't go far wrong. Good movie.

As an addendum I went to see it a second time, and I enjoyed it even more. The thing was, I wasn't sat through the film waiting for Elmer Bernstein's theme to kick in, so had more time to enjoy the humour which actually dominates the first half of the film, and the absolutely sumptuous filming of people's faces, I have never seen a film like it for taking such interesting visages and highlighting them in such fascinating detail.

How Green Was My Valley (1941)

Worth the watch from a perspective of film history, but......

[5/10 · 18 October 2016]

How Green Was My Valley is a bit like one of those books you have to read at school, but don't really want to and don't enjoy as much as you should. Altogether too twee, and whereas things like Lassie Come Home and Mrs Miniver tug the heartstrings to breaking point this seems a deal, clumsier? (That's not the right word, perhaps reckless might be a better term) The thing is, it pertains to being right-on, it could have been an incredible ecological pioneer, and begins as if it is going to be, but falters from the get go. It could be a tribute to the working man, but it is unconvincing. It could be an homage to Wales but it is a load of Yanks in a studio with California backgrounds*. It could have been a counterpoint to Goodbye Mr Chips, but it ended up just with a short but total indictment of teachers whilst forgetting the system. Most of all it could be an epic on rational economics but it never actually makes its mind up enough to get started. Its loudest clarion is for that oxymoron 'sensible religion', so all in all, I was happy to watch it from the point of cinema history, but I enjoyed my sweet potato fries with coconut and mushroom sauce a deal more. (The food got a 7.7). The Hayes code has got a lot to answer for. I wonder if William Wyler would have done it better?

* Called that before I read it "Fox wanted to shoot the movie in Wales in Technicolor, but events in Europe during World War II made this impossible. Instead, Ford had the studio build an 80 acre authentic replica of a Welsh mining town at Brent's Crags (subsequently Crags Country Club) in the Santa Monica Mountains near Malibu, California. The cast had one Welsh actor, Rhys Williams, in a minor role." (Wikipedia)

If you do watch this listen for the cast all conjugating sentences like Yoda! "How green was my Valley that day, too, green and bright in the sun."

A Perfect World (1993)

A Perfect World is a perfect film!

[10/10 · 12 October 2016]

Nigh on a perfect film. In fact it is perfect and as an exercise in movie making, taking account of all aspects other than personal enjoyment quotient it ticks every box, unreservedly, and it was only a personal thing which lead me to initially give it a 9.3. But whatever, let's not get too precious about it. 10. Up there in the stellar regions of my ten films we can get really incremental, but I cannot think of a single factor, including personal enjoyment where it doesn't get top marks, as the more I have pondered it the more I realise the beauty of it all. It's a buddy movie twice, Clint Eastwood and Laura Dearn carrying the support act to Costner and T.J. Lowther's focal piece, there is a pleasant dressing of comedy, and in Costner's Butch a character of wide yet visible complexity who encapsulates the dilemma faced by social scientists across time and space since the get go, never mind a person's own demons. It's kind of better in that it is not a widely acclaimed film, it makes it more personal, and a film that grows with investment; for me it got better as it wore on, I really don't think there is anything not to love about it. If I were dishing the gongs out I wouldn't have given 1993's to Tom Hanks. And I truly dig Tom Hanks.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Most disappointing film I have ever seen?

[3/10 · 18 July 2016]

Is this the most disappointing film I have ever seen? It is probably not the worst, though it could easily win this year's Golden Raspberry, it is just heartbreaking to see an absolutely classic film from one's youth turned into something so much less. Kirsten Wiig is watchable, Melissa McCarthy delivers the kind of role you fear she will after you have seen one of her trailers and everything else swings from being a waste of time to abhorrent. Notable negatives include the reliance Nitpickers guide to Star Trek Technobabble generator, and the morphing of Jar Jar Binks into two different characters, one the comedic disaster half, the other the happy natives playing banjos in the sun stereotype, both 'halves' actually performing an exponential magnification of the eww factor, making Jillian and Patti at least 4 times more annoying than the clumsy, well-meaning Gungan outcast.

The thing is, given the tools at their disposal, the film makers could have made something terrific. Great franchise, sweet concept, New York locations, practically unlimited budget, available talent, how could they even do this? I'm actually angry! They even had Bill Murray, but not as Venkman! He was an old professor, but a different character, identical in demeanor, who seemed shoehorned in for no purpose whatsoever and then defenestrated without having contributed dick to the story. As each minute ticks by my opinion of this film sinks. I left after about an hour, I wish it had never been made. Yes I'm racist, yes I'm a misogynist, but I beg for films to illuminate and amuse me, and perhaps influence me to making better choices. This just makes it worse.