Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Jellyfish (2018) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Verdict: Tragic & Heart Breaking
Story: Jellyfish starts as we meet school student Sarah Taylor (Hill) who is in struggling through her drama classes, taking care of her young siblings, while trying to work to give them any sort of extra money, her mother Karen (Matthews) is unemployed suffering from a mental illness.
When Sarah’s teacher Adam Hale (Nri) sees her talent for comedy, he pushes her into trying stand up comedy for a show, just when Sarah’s life starts to fall apart, with her losing her job and the family losing their benefits because of her mother not attending her meetings. Sarah is left needing to turn to darker sides of her life, to make sure her siblings stay with her and don’t get put into the foster system.
Thoughts on Jellyfish
Characters – Sarah is a 15-year-old girl that must look after her younger siblings, while her mother is struggling with her own mental illnesses, Sarah is trying to get through her GCSEs, working part time and being the only adult in her house, she is facing a future that isn’t going to happen unless things change quickly, everything is slowly piling up on her, with life situations she shouldn’t have put on her. Karen in the mother who has been suffering through depression making it difficult for her to even get out of the house to keep the benefits coming in. Adam Hale is the drama teacher that does see some potential in Sarah, he encourages her to find her talent for comedy, being supportive, where nobody else is. Vince is the boss that is trying to be strict, he gives Sarah chances unaware of her problems at home, even if he ends up being like any boss who hasn’t gotten more out of their own life.
Performances – Liv Hill gives us one of the strongest performances you will ever see, from every expression of pain she is going through, to just holding in the explosion of emotion that wants to come out of her. Sinead Matthews does make her character look like she is struggling with life. The rest of the supporting cast are strong, they all let Liv take the centre stage.
Story – The story here shows a 15-year-old that must take care of her younger siblings, manager school life and work life just to keep a roof over their heads. This is a story that will put a startling light on how some children will be living and just what they will need to do to get through each day, it shows the poverty line in England and how people will often not even give you the time of day to see what is wrong with somebody’s life, with only one person trying to offer support to Sarah. We see just how desperate she has become to make sure the family stays together even going against the law in her attempts. You will find yourself being incredibly moved by the struggles of Sarah and watching her slowly see her life unravel makes you want to help her.
Settings – The film is set in Margate a small coast town that doesn’t have the luxury life many people living there would have, it shows that small towns don’t offer big futures for people.
Scene of the Movie – The routine.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Is drama the only class Sarah takes?
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most emotionally charged movies you will see, we have a truly brilliant performance that will leave you feeling heart broken by what Sarah goes through, a must watch.
Overall: Brilliant.
Story: Jellyfish starts as we meet school student Sarah Taylor (Hill) who is in struggling through her drama classes, taking care of her young siblings, while trying to work to give them any sort of extra money, her mother Karen (Matthews) is unemployed suffering from a mental illness.
When Sarah’s teacher Adam Hale (Nri) sees her talent for comedy, he pushes her into trying stand up comedy for a show, just when Sarah’s life starts to fall apart, with her losing her job and the family losing their benefits because of her mother not attending her meetings. Sarah is left needing to turn to darker sides of her life, to make sure her siblings stay with her and don’t get put into the foster system.
Thoughts on Jellyfish
Characters – Sarah is a 15-year-old girl that must look after her younger siblings, while her mother is struggling with her own mental illnesses, Sarah is trying to get through her GCSEs, working part time and being the only adult in her house, she is facing a future that isn’t going to happen unless things change quickly, everything is slowly piling up on her, with life situations she shouldn’t have put on her. Karen in the mother who has been suffering through depression making it difficult for her to even get out of the house to keep the benefits coming in. Adam Hale is the drama teacher that does see some potential in Sarah, he encourages her to find her talent for comedy, being supportive, where nobody else is. Vince is the boss that is trying to be strict, he gives Sarah chances unaware of her problems at home, even if he ends up being like any boss who hasn’t gotten more out of their own life.
Performances – Liv Hill gives us one of the strongest performances you will ever see, from every expression of pain she is going through, to just holding in the explosion of emotion that wants to come out of her. Sinead Matthews does make her character look like she is struggling with life. The rest of the supporting cast are strong, they all let Liv take the centre stage.
Story – The story here shows a 15-year-old that must take care of her younger siblings, manager school life and work life just to keep a roof over their heads. This is a story that will put a startling light on how some children will be living and just what they will need to do to get through each day, it shows the poverty line in England and how people will often not even give you the time of day to see what is wrong with somebody’s life, with only one person trying to offer support to Sarah. We see just how desperate she has become to make sure the family stays together even going against the law in her attempts. You will find yourself being incredibly moved by the struggles of Sarah and watching her slowly see her life unravel makes you want to help her.
Settings – The film is set in Margate a small coast town that doesn’t have the luxury life many people living there would have, it shows that small towns don’t offer big futures for people.
Scene of the Movie – The routine.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Is drama the only class Sarah takes?
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most emotionally charged movies you will see, we have a truly brilliant performance that will leave you feeling heart broken by what Sarah goes through, a must watch.
Overall: Brilliant.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Jul 4, 2019
Broadly fine
I am a long-time fan of Terry Pratchett, and a more recent fan of Neil Gaiman, and yet it was only the release of the TV series that prompted me to finally read their joint effort. I thought the book was pretty good, lots of nice silly little jokes spread about, and a good plot keeping up momentum throughout.
I felt the TV series let the book down a little bit. While the overall story and the dialogue, in the main, is true to the book, I felt a lot of it fell flat. A lot of the humour (which comes in the form of charming asides, generally in the narrative of the book) missed the mark and just did not land properly. I did like the expanded section on Azirafale and Crowley's efforts through time, though I think they laboured it too long on the angel's unwillingness and didn't quite show how much they had worked together.
Tennant played Bill Nighy playing a demon, Sheen played David Mitchell playing an angel and they were broadly fine but didn't really sit perfectly for my liking. The rest of the cast were pretty strong (with the exception of Jack Whitehall who I utterly detest and don't think he can act for toffee).
The special effects were on the poor side, but that is only compared to the major big-budget TV shows like GoT and The Walking Dead. The physical effects were excellent.
In all, I am glad they restricted the series to a small number of episodes and did not try and drag it out too long. The ending was not given the build-up it deserved, there really wasn't enough peril before the two single acts that stopped the end of the war (Pulsifer and Adam).
I was very happy to see the relationship between Azirafale and Crowley develop beyond friendship
I felt the TV series let the book down a little bit. While the overall story and the dialogue, in the main, is true to the book, I felt a lot of it fell flat. A lot of the humour (which comes in the form of charming asides, generally in the narrative of the book) missed the mark and just did not land properly. I did like the expanded section on Azirafale and Crowley's efforts through time, though I think they laboured it too long on the angel's unwillingness and didn't quite show how much they had worked together.
Tennant played Bill Nighy playing a demon, Sheen played David Mitchell playing an angel and they were broadly fine but didn't really sit perfectly for my liking. The rest of the cast were pretty strong (with the exception of Jack Whitehall who I utterly detest and don't think he can act for toffee).
The special effects were on the poor side, but that is only compared to the major big-budget TV shows like GoT and The Walking Dead. The physical effects were excellent.
In all, I am glad they restricted the series to a small number of episodes and did not try and drag it out too long. The ending was not given the build-up it deserved, there really wasn't enough peril before the two single acts that stopped the end of the war (Pulsifer and Adam).
I was very happy to see the relationship between Azirafale and Crowley develop beyond friendship
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Dead Don't Die (2019) in Movies
Jan 7, 2020 (Updated Jan 29, 2020)
Several Wild Animals
The Dead Don't Die is truly a bizarre experience.
Jim Jarmusch has crafted a gratuitously deadpan and self aware zombie film that tackles tired genre tropes in unique and confusing ways.
Truth be told, I was ready to hate it. I knew that it wasn't the same style of zombie-comedy as Zombieland, or Shaun of the Dead, and I expected to be bogged down in pretentiousness - I'm happy to admit that I was wrong in this case.
A lot of the complaints I've seen about TDDD is precisely that. That, and the fourth wall breaking, but those are two aspects that I actually really liked.
The humour is really subtle for the most part. The dead pan delivery of a lot of the script was quite jarring at first, but it didn't take long for it settle, and I actually ended up finding it pretty funny, just not in-your-face funny (which is a good thing).
The fourth wall stuff verges on being too-clever-for-its-own-good but it just about pulls it off, and gives an interesting alternate thought process to the general narrative.
The cast is brimming with people that I like and love - Bill Murray, Adam Driver (surely a full blown man crush by this point), Chloë Sevigny, Steve Buscemi, Danny Glover, Tilda Swinton... God damn I even love Iggy Pop. It's a great cast list for sure, and the charming and witty script gives them all a lot to do, even if some of the many characters feel under developed at times.
The zombie aspect is a bit if a back seat for me. I was certainly more invested in the aforementioned cast, than any actual zombie action, but I enjoyed the 'classic' shuffling zombies in a small town setting for what it's worth.
I'm not sure what I expected from The Dead Don't Die, but it certainly wasn't what I got, and that precisely why it stands out.
Jim Jarmusch has crafted a gratuitously deadpan and self aware zombie film that tackles tired genre tropes in unique and confusing ways.
Truth be told, I was ready to hate it. I knew that it wasn't the same style of zombie-comedy as Zombieland, or Shaun of the Dead, and I expected to be bogged down in pretentiousness - I'm happy to admit that I was wrong in this case.
A lot of the complaints I've seen about TDDD is precisely that. That, and the fourth wall breaking, but those are two aspects that I actually really liked.
The humour is really subtle for the most part. The dead pan delivery of a lot of the script was quite jarring at first, but it didn't take long for it settle, and I actually ended up finding it pretty funny, just not in-your-face funny (which is a good thing).
The fourth wall stuff verges on being too-clever-for-its-own-good but it just about pulls it off, and gives an interesting alternate thought process to the general narrative.
The cast is brimming with people that I like and love - Bill Murray, Adam Driver (surely a full blown man crush by this point), Chloë Sevigny, Steve Buscemi, Danny Glover, Tilda Swinton... God damn I even love Iggy Pop. It's a great cast list for sure, and the charming and witty script gives them all a lot to do, even if some of the many characters feel under developed at times.
The zombie aspect is a bit if a back seat for me. I was certainly more invested in the aforementioned cast, than any actual zombie action, but I enjoyed the 'classic' shuffling zombies in a small town setting for what it's worth.
I'm not sure what I expected from The Dead Don't Die, but it certainly wasn't what I got, and that precisely why it stands out.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Black Water (2008) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Black Water starts when Grace (Glenn) her husband Adam (Rodoreda) and her younger sister Lee (Dermody) are off on an adventure across Northern Australia, visiting a crocodile farm before heading out into the black water for a fishing day with guide Jim (Oxenbould).
When their small boat is capsized by a crocodile the family find themselves hiding in the trees waiting to see if the crocodile has gone before making their decision on how to escape.
Thoughts on Black Water
Characters – Grace is the married pregnant old sister, she is using the trip to make the announcement to her husband, once the attack happens she wants to protect her younger sister, while trying to think of a logical way out of the situation. Lee is the younger sister that is on the trip for her first adventure, she doesn’t have anything about her to make her feel unique other than that she seems to sleep a lot. Adam is the husband that suggest the trip, once trapped he wants to use the quick option to safety which might be the more dangerous one.
Performances – When we look at the performances we must start with the negatives, it doesn’t help that the characters are written very weakly, which gives the three main stars very little to work with, must of what they need to do is sit in a tree have the same conversation.
Story – The story here is simple, we follow three people that get trapped by a crocodile in the middle is the North Australian waters, they must figure out how to survive and this is sold on based on a true story. there are plenty of things which don’t help the story here, first we don’t get a chance to get to know the characters well enough, they are mostly just generic because we don’t know enough to care about them. We get the same conversation about what is the best idea for seemingly ages without any action being followed. We do get to follow the normal animal attack story which mostly revolves around screaming over anything else.
Action/Horror – The action isn’t shot with the best style, we know what is happening, its just most of the action is off camera which makes it hard to believe the crocodile attacks.
Settings – The film puts us in the middle of the black water in North Australia which is does put our characters in a place where rescue isn’t an option and escaping isn’t one either.
Special Effects – The effects for the after attacks look like good strong practical effects, when we start seeing the attack in progress we lose something about what we are seeing.
Scene of the Movie – The feeding night.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We see to have the same conversation 4 or 5 times.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple animal attack movie that lacks that extra quality to make us truly disturbed by what we are seeing, we have dull characters and poorly shot action.
Overall: Simple animal attack film.
When their small boat is capsized by a crocodile the family find themselves hiding in the trees waiting to see if the crocodile has gone before making their decision on how to escape.
Thoughts on Black Water
Characters – Grace is the married pregnant old sister, she is using the trip to make the announcement to her husband, once the attack happens she wants to protect her younger sister, while trying to think of a logical way out of the situation. Lee is the younger sister that is on the trip for her first adventure, she doesn’t have anything about her to make her feel unique other than that she seems to sleep a lot. Adam is the husband that suggest the trip, once trapped he wants to use the quick option to safety which might be the more dangerous one.
Performances – When we look at the performances we must start with the negatives, it doesn’t help that the characters are written very weakly, which gives the three main stars very little to work with, must of what they need to do is sit in a tree have the same conversation.
Story – The story here is simple, we follow three people that get trapped by a crocodile in the middle is the North Australian waters, they must figure out how to survive and this is sold on based on a true story. there are plenty of things which don’t help the story here, first we don’t get a chance to get to know the characters well enough, they are mostly just generic because we don’t know enough to care about them. We get the same conversation about what is the best idea for seemingly ages without any action being followed. We do get to follow the normal animal attack story which mostly revolves around screaming over anything else.
Action/Horror – The action isn’t shot with the best style, we know what is happening, its just most of the action is off camera which makes it hard to believe the crocodile attacks.
Settings – The film puts us in the middle of the black water in North Australia which is does put our characters in a place where rescue isn’t an option and escaping isn’t one either.
Special Effects – The effects for the after attacks look like good strong practical effects, when we start seeing the attack in progress we lose something about what we are seeing.
Scene of the Movie – The feeding night.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We see to have the same conversation 4 or 5 times.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple animal attack movie that lacks that extra quality to make us truly disturbed by what we are seeing, we have dull characters and poorly shot action.
Overall: Simple animal attack film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
25+ years in the making!
Up until its release, "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" would have been at the top of any movie list featuring movies in development hell never to actually make it to the big screen. Those who are interested should read the lengthy details of the various derailed productions of the film including its original incarnation starring Johnny Depp and the late Jean Rochefort. The film chronicles can even be viewed on their own in the 2002 documentary film "Lost in La Mancha".
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
*＊✿❀ Maki ❀✿＊* (7 KP) rated Attachments in Books
May 3, 2018
I actually liked this one more than I thought I was going to. The whole "reading emails without permission" thing...well, it says something that even the characters in the book don't think it's right. The fact that Lincoln at least acknowledges that what he's doing is wrong helps - it doesn't make the creepy stalker vibes completely go away, but it helps.
The setting worked well for the story. Being set in 1999, and focusing on the Y2K scare went a long way to making the events of the story believable. The internet was still young, and people didn't understand computers as well as we do today. Well, I mean, in general. Some people still don't understand computers.
Attachments didn't quite have the humor of Fangirl. It had its amusing moments and pop culture references, but as a whole the story took itself more seriously. Unfortunately, that made Lincoln's moments of self-pity something of a drag to get through.
And Lincoln's character is the main focus of the story, rather than the relationship between Beth and Lincoln. The two don't actually meet each other (or even talk to each other) until practically the end of the book.
Don't get me wrong - Lincoln's character arc was well done. He changes for the better over the course of the book, one small step at a time. But soooo much of that time is dedicated to Lincoln moping about how he's alone, and still living in his mother's house, or Lincoln being scolded by his sister for being alone and still living in his mother's house. There's no self-depreciating humor. It's just scene after scene of Lincoln being miserable.
I really enjoyed the format of the book, though. It feels weird for me to focus so much on that, but I liked the back and forth emails between Beth and Jennifer. And for all of the stalker vibes that came from Lincoln reading their exchanges, I liked the idea behind the execution. Lincoln wasn't given the entire story between the two women, but saw enough snippets of their lives to piece together their stories. Lincoln was as much of an observer to the events of the emails as the reader.
And despite that limitation, despite the fact that they're only physically present once or twice, Beth and Jennifer were both strong characters. They were very well-written. I'd read a book of just their emails back and forth. Even if Beth *does* love Adam Sandler movies.
The setting worked well for the story. Being set in 1999, and focusing on the Y2K scare went a long way to making the events of the story believable. The internet was still young, and people didn't understand computers as well as we do today. Well, I mean, in general. Some people still don't understand computers.
Attachments didn't quite have the humor of Fangirl. It had its amusing moments and pop culture references, but as a whole the story took itself more seriously. Unfortunately, that made Lincoln's moments of self-pity something of a drag to get through.
And Lincoln's character is the main focus of the story, rather than the relationship between Beth and Lincoln. The two don't actually meet each other (or even talk to each other) until practically the end of the book.
Don't get me wrong - Lincoln's character arc was well done. He changes for the better over the course of the book, one small step at a time. But soooo much of that time is dedicated to Lincoln moping about how he's alone, and still living in his mother's house, or Lincoln being scolded by his sister for being alone and still living in his mother's house. There's no self-depreciating humor. It's just scene after scene of Lincoln being miserable.
I really enjoyed the format of the book, though. It feels weird for me to focus so much on that, but I liked the back and forth emails between Beth and Jennifer. And for all of the stalker vibes that came from Lincoln reading their exchanges, I liked the idea behind the execution. Lincoln wasn't given the entire story between the two women, but saw enough snippets of their lives to piece together their stories. Lincoln was as much of an observer to the events of the emails as the reader.
And despite that limitation, despite the fact that they're only physically present once or twice, Beth and Jennifer were both strong characters. They were very well-written. I'd read a book of just their emails back and forth. Even if Beth *does* love Adam Sandler movies.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
Sleepaway Hell Camp 1993
Since its Friday the 13th today, im going to review, the one that couldnt have the Friday the 13th title because new line couldnt have the title. The one that teased Freddy vs. Jason at the end of the movie, and then didnt happen for anethor 10 years. The one that was the ninth one. This one continued teenagers being teenagers. The one with Jason being blowed up in the beginning and transfering his soul from people to people, wait what??? Why???
The Plot: After being blown away by a team of FBI agents, Jason Voorhees (Kane Hodder) needs to find a way to overcome certain death. When his bloodied remains are sent to the morgue, his heart, still intact, is able to hypnotize a coroner and take over his body. After brutally dispatching a couple of FBI agents, he heads back to his favorite stomping grounds: Crystal Lake. Jason commences another teen massacre while a bounty hunter (Steven Williams) discovers the only way to kill him.
Tony Todd auditioned for the role of Creighton Duke, which went to Steven Williams. He should of been in it.
In November 2017, Adam Marcus revealed that an overlooked plot-point of the movie is that Jason Voorhees is actually connected to the Evil Dead franchise. The filmmaker stated, “Pamela Voorhees makes a deal with the devil by reading from the Necronomicon to bring back her son. It’s not like I could tell New Line my plan to include The Evil Dead, because they don’t own The Evil Dead. So it had to be an Easter egg, and I did focus on it…there’s a whole scene that includes the book, and I hoped people would get it and could figure out that’s what I’m up to. So yes, in my opinion, Jason Voorhees is a Deadite. He’s one of The Evil Dead.”
Marcus revealed Creighton Duke's intended backstory, "A teenage Creighton was out on Crystal Lake with his girlfriend. Jason capsized their small boat and pulled the girl down into the lake. Creighton tried to save her but could not. She was never seen again. Creighton vowed revenge and from that moment on he spent his life in the study and pursuit of Jason. He became a bounty hunter just to fund his work in taking down his nemesis.
Im not sure why this movie excist, but it does. A question is unanswered is how did Jason go from a kid at the end of part 8 to a full adlut in this one. Also how did Jason get back to Crystal Lake from Manhattan? Question that will not have a answer too.
Its still entertaining kind-of, its still a popcorn horror film kind-of. Its Jason Goes to Hell.
The Plot: After being blown away by a team of FBI agents, Jason Voorhees (Kane Hodder) needs to find a way to overcome certain death. When his bloodied remains are sent to the morgue, his heart, still intact, is able to hypnotize a coroner and take over his body. After brutally dispatching a couple of FBI agents, he heads back to his favorite stomping grounds: Crystal Lake. Jason commences another teen massacre while a bounty hunter (Steven Williams) discovers the only way to kill him.
Tony Todd auditioned for the role of Creighton Duke, which went to Steven Williams. He should of been in it.
In November 2017, Adam Marcus revealed that an overlooked plot-point of the movie is that Jason Voorhees is actually connected to the Evil Dead franchise. The filmmaker stated, “Pamela Voorhees makes a deal with the devil by reading from the Necronomicon to bring back her son. It’s not like I could tell New Line my plan to include The Evil Dead, because they don’t own The Evil Dead. So it had to be an Easter egg, and I did focus on it…there’s a whole scene that includes the book, and I hoped people would get it and could figure out that’s what I’m up to. So yes, in my opinion, Jason Voorhees is a Deadite. He’s one of The Evil Dead.”
Marcus revealed Creighton Duke's intended backstory, "A teenage Creighton was out on Crystal Lake with his girlfriend. Jason capsized their small boat and pulled the girl down into the lake. Creighton tried to save her but could not. She was never seen again. Creighton vowed revenge and from that moment on he spent his life in the study and pursuit of Jason. He became a bounty hunter just to fund his work in taking down his nemesis.
Im not sure why this movie excist, but it does. A question is unanswered is how did Jason go from a kid at the end of part 8 to a full adlut in this one. Also how did Jason get back to Crystal Lake from Manhattan? Question that will not have a answer too.
Its still entertaining kind-of, its still a popcorn horror film kind-of. Its Jason Goes to Hell.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.