steerpike_2002
Joined Mar 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.
Badges12
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings3.3K
steerpike_2002's rating
Reviews17
steerpike_2002's rating
When I was very young growing up in the UK, there was a children's show I watched called "The Raggy Dolls". Defective toys thrown into 'the reject's bin' of a toy factory came to life and had adventures. By depicting cast-outs and the marginalised finding solidarity and friendship the show aimed to represent and build empathy for children who, for whatever reason, didn't fit in.
While watching the Oscar-nominated Swiss animation "My Life as a Courgette" I thought about "The Raggy Dolls" more than once and felt that the creators must have had similar aims here. The film tells the story of Courgette, a young boy who has been raised by an alcoholic single mum and now finds himself in an orphanage. The other children have faced an array of similar abuses and must find courage and hope from one another.
A key strength of the film is the fine line it walks between depicting real darkness and maintaining a light enough tone for child viewers. There are hints that one of the children in the orphanage has been the victim of sexual abuse and writer Celine Sciamma deserves a lot of credit for portraying such a theme with the sensitivity it merits while maintaining a child-friendly rating.
The film is an adaptation of a book by French author Gilles Paris which was largely intended for teenagers but here the focus seems to have been attracting an adult audience while leaving the experience suitable for the whole family. It certainly feels like the sort of film that parents will watch together with their children rather than leaving them in front of it.
The design of the film is remarkable. The materials used, with clay for the character models but real cloth for their clothes, give the film a wonderful physicality and texture. Coupled with the small scale locations and cute designs such as the tiny wheels on all of the cars, the film has a toy-like feel which produces a protective, safe atmosphere to counter its dark subject matter.
The characters are charmingly realised, with the children given the principle roles. Their actions are often heart-breaking. One girl, whose mother has been deported, runs to the door expectantly every time a car pulls up. The children all gaze longingly at a mother comforting her son after he has fallen from a sled. It definitely works - the film is emotionally affecting but genuinely hopeful.
The film should be applauded for not tacking on a lengthy, unnecessary third act which ups the stakes and adds a conflict to be resolved - the orphanage is going to be bought by evil Mr. Grimshanks? We have to stop him children! Lots of movies would have done this to make the film more 'cinematic' but these are always the parts of the movie where the plot stops serving the characters and would have been sinfully out of place here. Having said that, the film does fall short of providing a Dardenne-esque breakthrough moment to bring our characters to a new state or realisation and the movie to even greater heights.
This is the 3rd of the Oscar nominations for Best Animated Film in 2017 that I have seen, with "The Red Turtle" and "Moana" yet to be viewed. So far I think that the Academy definitely picked the worst of the bunch with "Zootropolis". At the time of writing "My Life as a Courgette" has 50x fewer ratings than Pixar's film on IMDb. This is a shame, as the Swiss film is a considerably more measured story and innovative film and deserves a wider audience.
While watching the Oscar-nominated Swiss animation "My Life as a Courgette" I thought about "The Raggy Dolls" more than once and felt that the creators must have had similar aims here. The film tells the story of Courgette, a young boy who has been raised by an alcoholic single mum and now finds himself in an orphanage. The other children have faced an array of similar abuses and must find courage and hope from one another.
A key strength of the film is the fine line it walks between depicting real darkness and maintaining a light enough tone for child viewers. There are hints that one of the children in the orphanage has been the victim of sexual abuse and writer Celine Sciamma deserves a lot of credit for portraying such a theme with the sensitivity it merits while maintaining a child-friendly rating.
The film is an adaptation of a book by French author Gilles Paris which was largely intended for teenagers but here the focus seems to have been attracting an adult audience while leaving the experience suitable for the whole family. It certainly feels like the sort of film that parents will watch together with their children rather than leaving them in front of it.
The design of the film is remarkable. The materials used, with clay for the character models but real cloth for their clothes, give the film a wonderful physicality and texture. Coupled with the small scale locations and cute designs such as the tiny wheels on all of the cars, the film has a toy-like feel which produces a protective, safe atmosphere to counter its dark subject matter.
The characters are charmingly realised, with the children given the principle roles. Their actions are often heart-breaking. One girl, whose mother has been deported, runs to the door expectantly every time a car pulls up. The children all gaze longingly at a mother comforting her son after he has fallen from a sled. It definitely works - the film is emotionally affecting but genuinely hopeful.
The film should be applauded for not tacking on a lengthy, unnecessary third act which ups the stakes and adds a conflict to be resolved - the orphanage is going to be bought by evil Mr. Grimshanks? We have to stop him children! Lots of movies would have done this to make the film more 'cinematic' but these are always the parts of the movie where the plot stops serving the characters and would have been sinfully out of place here. Having said that, the film does fall short of providing a Dardenne-esque breakthrough moment to bring our characters to a new state or realisation and the movie to even greater heights.
This is the 3rd of the Oscar nominations for Best Animated Film in 2017 that I have seen, with "The Red Turtle" and "Moana" yet to be viewed. So far I think that the Academy definitely picked the worst of the bunch with "Zootropolis". At the time of writing "My Life as a Courgette" has 50x fewer ratings than Pixar's film on IMDb. This is a shame, as the Swiss film is a considerably more measured story and innovative film and deserves a wider audience.
There is a lot of expectation going into this movie which I think has probably helped it critically. On the one hand, it is the latest instalment in the DCEU franchise, which I think even critics want to eventually give a good score to, if only to provide some balance against the all-conquering critical success of the Marvel universe movies. Then there's the fact that this is the big female-lead movie of the year and critics will go in wanting to like it for this fact alone. With these factors combined, an average movie will probably pass, in the short term at least, for a great one.
And I think that this is what has happened in this case. "Wonder Woman" is far from being a bad movie. A lot of reviewers have focused on the fun feel to the movie as a positive. It's certainly the most cartoon-y superhero movie to come out of the DCEU so far which seems to be a response from Warner Brothers to criticism of the drained palette and humourlessness of "Batman vs. Superman". While it is fun, there are definitely negatives to this style, with considerably less grit in the overly bouncy action scenes. These cannot escape from Zack Snyder's creative influence and suffer as a result.
The core strengths of the movie are the central characters, Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) and Steve Trevor (Chris Pine). The characters are written well, with Wonder Woman's do-gooder resolve offset by her naivety. Gal Gadot gives a great physical and emotional performance, her movements, postures and facial expressions capturing her strength and, well, goodness perfectly. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve as Superman are fitting, and she is every bit as dashing as Reeve was. Pine almost steals the show as the love interest. He has tremendous chemistry with Gadot and his character has enough depth to be interesting in his own right.
I did find the setting of the story in WWI a big distraction and a flawed choice thematically. The character Wonder Woman was created in the 1940s and her origins placed in WWII, where she battles the evil Nazis alongside Allied forces. The writers' choice here to shift this back to WWI could have been justified. For such a staunchly anti-war character, in some ways WWI is a better fit. It serves as a symbol of a mechanised embodiment of war which simply consumed men and resources rather than serving any cause. Had the creators of the movie emphasised the meaninglessness of the conflict, with no clear distinction between good sides and bad sides, it would have been a great setting to test Wonder Woman's moral strength. It also fits with Wonder Woman's key motive during the film - she must destroy Ares, as it is his external agency that she believes has corrupted men and drawn them into the conflict.
Sadly the writers want to have their cake and eat it, so alongside this core theme we get some gleefully evil German villains who would clearly be more at home in a WWII setting. Wonder Woman is always fighting the Germans and never seems to really question whether the Triple Entente are any better. This isn't a hard choice, since it's the Germans here, and not the British, who are out to create super death gas (never mind the fact that both sides used chemical weapons during the actual war). I genuinely don't think that the movie ever really makes up its mind about which of its conflicting ideas is right, a non-trivial problem at the heart of the film.
The motivation for the change of setting appears, to me at least, to have been largely aesthetic and probably driven by a desire for something less familiar than WWII. Director Patty Jenkins showed a shocking ignorance of this problem when she said "World War I is...not something that we really know the history of." This ignorance of the issues raised by this creative decision only increases the validity of these criticisms.
It's a real shame because, action scenes aside, so much of the hard work to make this movie great is in place. The look and mood of the film and the casting choices are all spot on and the story could really have worked with more sensitivity and courage from the writers. As it is, the film must be seen as a decent, but undeniably flawed effort.
And I think that this is what has happened in this case. "Wonder Woman" is far from being a bad movie. A lot of reviewers have focused on the fun feel to the movie as a positive. It's certainly the most cartoon-y superhero movie to come out of the DCEU so far which seems to be a response from Warner Brothers to criticism of the drained palette and humourlessness of "Batman vs. Superman". While it is fun, there are definitely negatives to this style, with considerably less grit in the overly bouncy action scenes. These cannot escape from Zack Snyder's creative influence and suffer as a result.
The core strengths of the movie are the central characters, Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) and Steve Trevor (Chris Pine). The characters are written well, with Wonder Woman's do-gooder resolve offset by her naivety. Gal Gadot gives a great physical and emotional performance, her movements, postures and facial expressions capturing her strength and, well, goodness perfectly. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve as Superman are fitting, and she is every bit as dashing as Reeve was. Pine almost steals the show as the love interest. He has tremendous chemistry with Gadot and his character has enough depth to be interesting in his own right.
I did find the setting of the story in WWI a big distraction and a flawed choice thematically. The character Wonder Woman was created in the 1940s and her origins placed in WWII, where she battles the evil Nazis alongside Allied forces. The writers' choice here to shift this back to WWI could have been justified. For such a staunchly anti-war character, in some ways WWI is a better fit. It serves as a symbol of a mechanised embodiment of war which simply consumed men and resources rather than serving any cause. Had the creators of the movie emphasised the meaninglessness of the conflict, with no clear distinction between good sides and bad sides, it would have been a great setting to test Wonder Woman's moral strength. It also fits with Wonder Woman's key motive during the film - she must destroy Ares, as it is his external agency that she believes has corrupted men and drawn them into the conflict.
Sadly the writers want to have their cake and eat it, so alongside this core theme we get some gleefully evil German villains who would clearly be more at home in a WWII setting. Wonder Woman is always fighting the Germans and never seems to really question whether the Triple Entente are any better. This isn't a hard choice, since it's the Germans here, and not the British, who are out to create super death gas (never mind the fact that both sides used chemical weapons during the actual war). I genuinely don't think that the movie ever really makes up its mind about which of its conflicting ideas is right, a non-trivial problem at the heart of the film.
The motivation for the change of setting appears, to me at least, to have been largely aesthetic and probably driven by a desire for something less familiar than WWII. Director Patty Jenkins showed a shocking ignorance of this problem when she said "World War I is...not something that we really know the history of." This ignorance of the issues raised by this creative decision only increases the validity of these criticisms.
It's a real shame because, action scenes aside, so much of the hard work to make this movie great is in place. The look and mood of the film and the casting choices are all spot on and the story could really have worked with more sensitivity and courage from the writers. As it is, the film must be seen as a decent, but undeniably flawed effort.
Writer/director Roger Michell has done a wonderful job with this adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's book "My Cousin Rachel". The film tells the story of Philip (Sam Claflin), an orphan raised in the early 19th Century by his cousin Ambrose. When Ambrose dies abroad in Italy shortly after marrying their cousin Rachel (Rachel Weisz), Philip suspects that she has murdered him and prepares to confront her on her return to England. When she arrives, his plans are abandoned as he instead becomes swiftly infatuated by her beauty and intimacy.
Michell should be credited with resisting the temptation of presenting the story as a moody Gothic romance akin to the 1952 adaptation starring Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton. Instead Michell allows most of the story to unfold in the bright sunshine and emphasises the impacts of characters' choices over the inevitability of fate, a refreshingly modern approach. Despite the importance of the mystery at its heart, the film had more of "Far from the Madding Crowd" in it for me - with its socially liberated characters and bright depictions of agricultural life - than "Wuthering Heights" or Hitchcock.
Central to the success of the film are the lead performances by Rachel Weisz and Sam Claflin. Weisz gives a truly unique performance as Rachel, giving her sensuality without making her a femme fatale and allowing her idiosyncrasies, particularly in her half chuckles and swallowed words, which give her character the depth required to keep the mystery alive. Sam Claflin impressed me here with an impassioned performance of the naive young man trying to shield his insecurities with his growing authority. Michell invites them to explore the almost Oedipal nature of Philip's attraction to Rachel, and the actors whole-heartedly oblige with some wickedly perverse interplay.
The cinematography is beguiling, with excellent use of focus to emphasise what the characters see (and equally importantly what they do not), and serves to enhance the tension. The score by Rael Jones, with soft but sinister bells, is effective and never distracting.
I think that the film's chief drawback is that once the characters are in place, the events of the 2nd act are quite predictable and the film perceptibly slows down. This is made up for by a bracing final 20 minutes but was enough to hold the film back from being a real masterpiece. Despite this, I think that the film will be seen in years to come as the definitive adaptation of Du Maurier's book and a fine release for 2017.
Michell should be credited with resisting the temptation of presenting the story as a moody Gothic romance akin to the 1952 adaptation starring Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton. Instead Michell allows most of the story to unfold in the bright sunshine and emphasises the impacts of characters' choices over the inevitability of fate, a refreshingly modern approach. Despite the importance of the mystery at its heart, the film had more of "Far from the Madding Crowd" in it for me - with its socially liberated characters and bright depictions of agricultural life - than "Wuthering Heights" or Hitchcock.
Central to the success of the film are the lead performances by Rachel Weisz and Sam Claflin. Weisz gives a truly unique performance as Rachel, giving her sensuality without making her a femme fatale and allowing her idiosyncrasies, particularly in her half chuckles and swallowed words, which give her character the depth required to keep the mystery alive. Sam Claflin impressed me here with an impassioned performance of the naive young man trying to shield his insecurities with his growing authority. Michell invites them to explore the almost Oedipal nature of Philip's attraction to Rachel, and the actors whole-heartedly oblige with some wickedly perverse interplay.
The cinematography is beguiling, with excellent use of focus to emphasise what the characters see (and equally importantly what they do not), and serves to enhance the tension. The score by Rael Jones, with soft but sinister bells, is effective and never distracting.
I think that the film's chief drawback is that once the characters are in place, the events of the 2nd act are quite predictable and the film perceptibly slows down. This is made up for by a bracing final 20 minutes but was enough to hold the film back from being a real masterpiece. Despite this, I think that the film will be seen in years to come as the definitive adaptation of Du Maurier's book and a fine release for 2017.