Search
Search results
Henry Rollins recommended Apocalypse Now (1979) in Movies (curated)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sequoia in Tabletop Games
Mar 17, 2021
Sequoias are some of the largest trees on Earth, growing hundreds of feet tall and living for thousands of years. A few summers ago I had the chance to visit northern California, and spent a day hiking in a forest full of redwoods and sequoias. The sheer size of the trees was breathtaking, and that hike remains high on my list of favorite vacation spots ever. So when I saw a small game based on those behemoth trees, I was instantly transported back to NorCal, and knew I had to give this game a shot!
Sequoia is a game of dice rolling and area majority in which players are trying to grow the largest trees across different forests. To setup the game, lay out the 11 forest cards on the table within reach of all players, and randomly assign a 1st and 2nd place token to each card. Each player receives 5 dice and 20 tree tokens in their chosen color. The game is ready to begin!
On each turn, players will simultaneously roll their 5 dice – keeping the results secret from all other players! After rolling, players will create 2 pairs using 4 of their dice (one will be left out). Everyone reveals their pairs at the same time, and will place a tree token on the card that matches each of their dice pairs. For example, my pairs might be a 5 and a 2, and a 6 and a 6, so I would put a tree token on the 7 and 12 forest cards. Play continues in this manner (rolling dice, creating pairs, and placing tree tokens), until players have placed all of their tokens. Once all tokens have been placed, the game moves to the scoring phase. For each forest card, the 1st and 2nd place tokens go to the players who have the most and 2nd most tree tokens on the forest card. Once all cards have been scored, count up final points, and the player with the most points wins!
I have to start off by saying that Sequoia really surprised me. I was expecting a fast, light game, and that’s what I got. But I also got a game with a fun amount of player interaction and strategy that keeps all players engaged. You may not know what forest cards a player will choose each turn, but you can see who has already played tree tokens to each card, which can help drive your strategy. Do you want to directly compete with everyone and really pile on the tokens to win 1st place on a card? Or do you want to spread your tokens around to as many forest cards as possible, and hopefully maximize points that are otherwise being ignored by opponents? Especially since the 1st and 2nd place tokens are randomly assigned and have differing values, you really don’t know which forests will yield the highest points until the end of the game. Sequoia is a Yahtzee-esque game that allows direct player interaction, and that elevates the overall gameplay for me.
Let’s talk about components for a minute. These components are great. The forest cards are a nice thick card stock. The tree tokens and 1st/2nd place tokens are all good chunky bits that will definitely hold up over time. And the dice are nice little d6’s that are easy to read and fun to manipulate. The color matching with the dice and tree tokens is also really nice, and I appreciate that uniformity for each player color. All in all, a high quality production for such a small game.
If you ask me, I think Sequoia is a perfect filler game. It is super fast to teach and play, the setup/cleanup takes literally seconds, and it provides an engaging and fun gameplay. Beyond being a filler game, it is a great small standalone game as well. Want something fast to play while the oven is pre-heating for dinner? Pull out Sequoia! I also love that it is simple enough for younger players to understand – it is a numbers game, but you can also visually see what your opponents are working towards, and that lends itself to a good amount of player interaction. Definitely a game that I can see getting a decent amount of table time in my group! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sky-rocketing 8 / 12. Check it out, you might be surprised!
Sequoia is a game of dice rolling and area majority in which players are trying to grow the largest trees across different forests. To setup the game, lay out the 11 forest cards on the table within reach of all players, and randomly assign a 1st and 2nd place token to each card. Each player receives 5 dice and 20 tree tokens in their chosen color. The game is ready to begin!
On each turn, players will simultaneously roll their 5 dice – keeping the results secret from all other players! After rolling, players will create 2 pairs using 4 of their dice (one will be left out). Everyone reveals their pairs at the same time, and will place a tree token on the card that matches each of their dice pairs. For example, my pairs might be a 5 and a 2, and a 6 and a 6, so I would put a tree token on the 7 and 12 forest cards. Play continues in this manner (rolling dice, creating pairs, and placing tree tokens), until players have placed all of their tokens. Once all tokens have been placed, the game moves to the scoring phase. For each forest card, the 1st and 2nd place tokens go to the players who have the most and 2nd most tree tokens on the forest card. Once all cards have been scored, count up final points, and the player with the most points wins!
I have to start off by saying that Sequoia really surprised me. I was expecting a fast, light game, and that’s what I got. But I also got a game with a fun amount of player interaction and strategy that keeps all players engaged. You may not know what forest cards a player will choose each turn, but you can see who has already played tree tokens to each card, which can help drive your strategy. Do you want to directly compete with everyone and really pile on the tokens to win 1st place on a card? Or do you want to spread your tokens around to as many forest cards as possible, and hopefully maximize points that are otherwise being ignored by opponents? Especially since the 1st and 2nd place tokens are randomly assigned and have differing values, you really don’t know which forests will yield the highest points until the end of the game. Sequoia is a Yahtzee-esque game that allows direct player interaction, and that elevates the overall gameplay for me.
Let’s talk about components for a minute. These components are great. The forest cards are a nice thick card stock. The tree tokens and 1st/2nd place tokens are all good chunky bits that will definitely hold up over time. And the dice are nice little d6’s that are easy to read and fun to manipulate. The color matching with the dice and tree tokens is also really nice, and I appreciate that uniformity for each player color. All in all, a high quality production for such a small game.
If you ask me, I think Sequoia is a perfect filler game. It is super fast to teach and play, the setup/cleanup takes literally seconds, and it provides an engaging and fun gameplay. Beyond being a filler game, it is a great small standalone game as well. Want something fast to play while the oven is pre-heating for dinner? Pull out Sequoia! I also love that it is simple enough for younger players to understand – it is a numbers game, but you can also visually see what your opponents are working towards, and that lends itself to a good amount of player interaction. Definitely a game that I can see getting a decent amount of table time in my group! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sky-rocketing 8 / 12. Check it out, you might be surprised!
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Lee Ronaldo recommended Kollaps by Einsturzende Neubauten in Music (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I swung between wanting to see this and not, had it been a normal world then of course I would have gone regardless, but as it is I wasn't having strong feelings about this one.
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Becs (244 KP) rated A Raisin in the Sun in Books
Oct 2, 2019
They honestly need more books like this. When my husband found out that I was getting A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry, he grew excited and he never does that unless it’s a science-related book. That was when I knew I was going to like this beautiful novel. When I started to read it, I rushed through it. Not in a “I just want to finish this book” way, more like “I FREAKING LOVE THIS BOOK AND I DON’T EVER WANT IT TO END” way. That says something, right?
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
Genre: Literary Classic, Play, Drama, Fiction
Synopsis: First produced in 1959, A Raisin in the Sun was awarded the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and hailed as a watershed in American drama. Not only a pioneering work by an African-American playwright – Lorraine Hansberry’s play was also a radically new representation of black life, resolutely authentic, fiercely unsentimental, and unflinching in its vision of what happens to people whose dreams are constantly deferred. In her portrait of an embattled Chicago family, Hansberry anticapted issues that range from generational clashes to the civil rights and women’s movements. She also posed the essential questions – about identity, justice, and moral responsibility – at the heart of those great struggles. The result is an American classic.
Audience/Reading Level: Middle School +
Interests: Plays, dramas, literary classics, racial segregation, women’s movement, 50s era.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: Not at all, I rushed through it because I loved it so much! As in some of Shakespeares plays, you don’t get stuck on the general language of the era it was written, as it’s written close to a book you would get from this era.
Promise: “Award-winning drama of the hopes and aspirations of a struggling, working-class family living on the South Side of Chicago connected profoundly with the psyche of black America–and changed American theater forever.” – It did. 🙂
Insights: I love reading plays as it’s a way to step out of a comfort zone of reading Young Adult novels. It gives me a chance to dip into my theater/acting side and use what I’ve learned from theatre classes. A Raisin in the Sun is a well-written American classic that honestly should be read in every school from middle school and up. The lessens that are taught throughout the play are subtle yet obvious which creates a background that we can use in our every day life.
Ah-Ha Moment: The moment that Beneatha came into the picture and was a total feminist. Man, she’s my favorite character besides Mama (Lena Younger) and her little plant.
Favorite Quotes: “Beneatha: Love him? There is nothing left to love. Mama: There is always something left to love. And if you ain’t learned that, you ain’t learned nothing. (Looking at her) Have you cried for that boy today? I don’t mean for yourself and for the family ’cause we lost the money. I mean for him: what he been through and what it done to him. Child, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done good and made things easy for everybody? Well then, you ain’t through learning – because that ain’t the time at all. It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe in hisself ’cause the world done whipped him so! when you starts measuring somebody, measure him right, child, measure him right. Make sure you done taken into account what hills and valleys he come through before he got to wherever he is.”
“Mama, you don’t understand. It’s all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don’t acept. It’s not important. I am not going out and commit crimes or be immoral because I don’t believe in God. I don’t even think about it. It’s just that I get so tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God! There is only Man, and it’s he who makes miracles!”
What will you gain: A haunting yet revealing play that will be as fresh of a read today, as it was in the 50’s.
Aesthetics: The entire play. The cover. The characters. The underlying meaning beneath it all. The era it was written and is based off of. Just everything about this little book.
“I want to fly! I want to touch the sun!”
“Finish your eggs first.”
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
Genre: Literary Classic, Play, Drama, Fiction
Synopsis: First produced in 1959, A Raisin in the Sun was awarded the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and hailed as a watershed in American drama. Not only a pioneering work by an African-American playwright – Lorraine Hansberry’s play was also a radically new representation of black life, resolutely authentic, fiercely unsentimental, and unflinching in its vision of what happens to people whose dreams are constantly deferred. In her portrait of an embattled Chicago family, Hansberry anticapted issues that range from generational clashes to the civil rights and women’s movements. She also posed the essential questions – about identity, justice, and moral responsibility – at the heart of those great struggles. The result is an American classic.
Audience/Reading Level: Middle School +
Interests: Plays, dramas, literary classics, racial segregation, women’s movement, 50s era.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: Not at all, I rushed through it because I loved it so much! As in some of Shakespeares plays, you don’t get stuck on the general language of the era it was written, as it’s written close to a book you would get from this era.
Promise: “Award-winning drama of the hopes and aspirations of a struggling, working-class family living on the South Side of Chicago connected profoundly with the psyche of black America–and changed American theater forever.” – It did. 🙂
Insights: I love reading plays as it’s a way to step out of a comfort zone of reading Young Adult novels. It gives me a chance to dip into my theater/acting side and use what I’ve learned from theatre classes. A Raisin in the Sun is a well-written American classic that honestly should be read in every school from middle school and up. The lessens that are taught throughout the play are subtle yet obvious which creates a background that we can use in our every day life.
Ah-Ha Moment: The moment that Beneatha came into the picture and was a total feminist. Man, she’s my favorite character besides Mama (Lena Younger) and her little plant.
Favorite Quotes: “Beneatha: Love him? There is nothing left to love. Mama: There is always something left to love. And if you ain’t learned that, you ain’t learned nothing. (Looking at her) Have you cried for that boy today? I don’t mean for yourself and for the family ’cause we lost the money. I mean for him: what he been through and what it done to him. Child, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done good and made things easy for everybody? Well then, you ain’t through learning – because that ain’t the time at all. It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe in hisself ’cause the world done whipped him so! when you starts measuring somebody, measure him right, child, measure him right. Make sure you done taken into account what hills and valleys he come through before he got to wherever he is.”
“Mama, you don’t understand. It’s all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don’t acept. It’s not important. I am not going out and commit crimes or be immoral because I don’t believe in God. I don’t even think about it. It’s just that I get so tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God! There is only Man, and it’s he who makes miracles!”
What will you gain: A haunting yet revealing play that will be as fresh of a read today, as it was in the 50’s.
Aesthetics: The entire play. The cover. The characters. The underlying meaning beneath it all. The era it was written and is based off of. Just everything about this little book.
“I want to fly! I want to touch the sun!”
“Finish your eggs first.”
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Good casting, Scarlett and Florence felt like actual sisters. (1 more)
Good chemistry and acting from David Harbour and Rachel Weisz.
Not much of a thriller or thinker for a spy movie. (1 more)
One actor was greatly wasted in their role.
Scarlett's Swan Song Had Plenty of Action With A Decent StoryNatasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) are living what seems like a normal life in 1995 Ohio, with their parents, mother, Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz) and
Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) are living what seems like a normal life in 1995 Ohio, with their parents, mother, Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz) and father, Alexei Shostakov (David Harbour) when suddenly they must leave the country. They are all Russian undercover agents and Alexei, the super-soldier known as Red Guardian, has stolen intel from S.H.I.E.L.D. They flee to Cuba where the sisters are forcibly taken to the "Red Room" for training after they've met General Dreykov (Ray Winstone), their boss. Now in 2016 after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Natasha finds herself a fugitive on the run from U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) after violating the Sokovia Accords. She's attacked by an incredibly skilled assassin called the Taskmaster and finds that she's not his target but rather a package she had with her. After learning the package originated from Budapest she heads there where she finds her sister Yelena and learns of a plot that not only jeopardizes the safety of those trained in the "Red Room" but possibly the whole world.
This movie was really good and it was great to see a Marvel movie again. I didn't see this one in theaters but I still enjoyed watching it in the safety of my home with my family. So this movie came off like a really good spy/action movie but definitely had that Marvel feel to it. It really felt like watching something out of the Bourne or Bond series films but with admittedly less plot and gadgets, but the action was really spot on. There was awesome car chase scenes and expertly crafted fight choreography too. It was even reported that they went through 13 BMW X3's for the car chase scene with Scarlett and Florence so you can tell that they really wanted to get things right and had a vision of what they wanted the audience to see for that particular scene as well. I thought there was really great chemistry from all the actors together and that it was pretty good casting. Scarlett and Florence argue throughout the film just like real sisters, and the looks that David Harbour and Rachel Weisz exchange feel like they were genuinely together. The opening scene of the movie had great acting and was very emotional. I just feel like one role/actor was kind of a bad casting and/or was greatly underutilized. I think the biggest flaw of the move was that for being a spy movie, the plot never had any mystery to it and everything was kind of predictable or at least very easy to follow. Not much of a thriller or thinker where you had to put two and two together. The cinematography was spot on and felt like you were watching any big budget spy or action movie and on par with what you expect from Marvel Studios. The tone fit the film for the most part but kind of "see-saw"-ed from time to time as they mixed serious themes with comedic dialogue throughout. But that's to be expected from a PG-13 action/spy movie from Marvel and it was a little reminiscent of the film Captain America in that regard. The music was good and there were a couple of songs that stuck out in that regard American Pie by Don Mclean and a cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Think Up Anger; also Cheap Thrills by Sia. The musical score was also good and the Black Widow theme was pretty epic but also with hints of melancholy to it that seemed to underline both her tragic background as well as the tragedy of the events to come in her future. Altogether the movie was really good and I give it a 7/10. If you are big time into the MCU and Marvel franchise movies then this is a must see film but if not then it might come off as just a barely above average action/spy film so that's why it doesn't get my "Must See Seal of Approval"
This movie was really good and it was great to see a Marvel movie again. I didn't see this one in theaters but I still enjoyed watching it in the safety of my home with my family. So this movie came off like a really good spy/action movie but definitely had that Marvel feel to it. It really felt like watching something out of the Bourne or Bond series films but with admittedly less plot and gadgets, but the action was really spot on. There was awesome car chase scenes and expertly crafted fight choreography too. It was even reported that they went through 13 BMW X3's for the car chase scene with Scarlett and Florence so you can tell that they really wanted to get things right and had a vision of what they wanted the audience to see for that particular scene as well. I thought there was really great chemistry from all the actors together and that it was pretty good casting. Scarlett and Florence argue throughout the film just like real sisters, and the looks that David Harbour and Rachel Weisz exchange feel like they were genuinely together. The opening scene of the movie had great acting and was very emotional. I just feel like one role/actor was kind of a bad casting and/or was greatly underutilized. I think the biggest flaw of the move was that for being a spy movie, the plot never had any mystery to it and everything was kind of predictable or at least very easy to follow. Not much of a thriller or thinker where you had to put two and two together. The cinematography was spot on and felt like you were watching any big budget spy or action movie and on par with what you expect from Marvel Studios. The tone fit the film for the most part but kind of "see-saw"-ed from time to time as they mixed serious themes with comedic dialogue throughout. But that's to be expected from a PG-13 action/spy movie from Marvel and it was a little reminiscent of the film Captain America in that regard. The music was good and there were a couple of songs that stuck out in that regard American Pie by Don Mclean and a cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Think Up Anger; also Cheap Thrills by Sia. The musical score was also good and the Black Widow theme was pretty epic but also with hints of melancholy to it that seemed to underline both her tragic background as well as the tragedy of the events to come in her future. Altogether the movie was really good and I give it a 7/10. If you are big time into the MCU and Marvel franchise movies then this is a must see film but if not then it might come off as just a barely above average action/spy film so that's why it doesn't get my "Must See Seal of Approval"
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.