Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk in TV
Mar 16, 2018 (Updated Mar 16, 2018)
The weird thing about the Hulk TV show is that it is almost nothing like the comic book version of the character, but still manages to be a classic piece of television (and was, for a long time, by far the most successful adaptation of a Marvel character to another medium). Creator Kenneth Johnson didn't want to do it, and did his hardest to distance his version from the book (he wanted to change the colour of the Hulk, but Marvel refused to let him), and ended up basically doing an American version of Les Miserables (the novel, not the musical) with Jean Valjean getting cross and swelling up into a monster twice an episode.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
Chloë McTaggart (48 KP) rated The Circle in Books
Oct 19, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Circle is Eggers 10th fictional work and through dystopian world building, goes to highlight some of the key modern day issues - specifically those surrounding technology and social media. Unlike other dystopian novels Eggers sets about showing the ‘positive’ side of what could be, ficionally speaking, as opposed to novels such as The Handmaids Tale and Divergence and such books that set themselves in a destroyed-dystopia.
Despite being set in a dystopian world full of technology we currently only see on the Syfy channel, it somehow clings to our ideas of reality and what is possible. By doing this, it soon offers a dangerous look at what technology may become as it highlights the impact it already has on our lives. The protagonist, Mae, lands a job at a technology company named “The Circle” which is comparable to brands and companies such as Apple, Google and Samsung. Eggers takes the ideas of the main technological companies of the twenty first century and rolls them into one; producing an unstoppable powerhouse of sharing, transparency and sociability overseen by a trinity of male bosses that we never really connect to. While Eggers sets the scene, and development of society, through his use of The Circle as an interdimensional power house, he fails to develop a relatable character in his protagonist.
From the start of the book the protagonist, Mae, comes across as weak and unmotivated with some parts of the novel serving almost as a pity party for her. If she’s not complaining, she’s raving about ex-boyfriends or how hard a life she has as though she’s the only one in the world that matters - though I suppose to Eggers she is the most important. Through this self pity, the reader struggles to find a point of contact with Mae; she offers no escape from the real world and instead becomes a motivation to stop reading the novel.
However, despite the lack of character development, the novel does raise relevant questions concerning technology and social media. In the film adaptation, it serves to show us just how much of an impact we can have on others without realising it; and how even when we do realise it the popularity or reward is too enticing to stop.
Despite being set in a dystopian world full of technology we currently only see on the Syfy channel, it somehow clings to our ideas of reality and what is possible. By doing this, it soon offers a dangerous look at what technology may become as it highlights the impact it already has on our lives. The protagonist, Mae, lands a job at a technology company named “The Circle” which is comparable to brands and companies such as Apple, Google and Samsung. Eggers takes the ideas of the main technological companies of the twenty first century and rolls them into one; producing an unstoppable powerhouse of sharing, transparency and sociability overseen by a trinity of male bosses that we never really connect to. While Eggers sets the scene, and development of society, through his use of The Circle as an interdimensional power house, he fails to develop a relatable character in his protagonist.
From the start of the book the protagonist, Mae, comes across as weak and unmotivated with some parts of the novel serving almost as a pity party for her. If she’s not complaining, she’s raving about ex-boyfriends or how hard a life she has as though she’s the only one in the world that matters - though I suppose to Eggers she is the most important. Through this self pity, the reader struggles to find a point of contact with Mae; she offers no escape from the real world and instead becomes a motivation to stop reading the novel.
However, despite the lack of character development, the novel does raise relevant questions concerning technology and social media. In the film adaptation, it serves to show us just how much of an impact we can have on others without realising it; and how even when we do realise it the popularity or reward is too enticing to stop.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018 (Updated Nov 5, 2018)
Slight variation on the Alice in Wonderland reboot
I'm guessing Disney want to keep going with their live action Princess films, and thought they'd hit gold with the rights to the Nutcracker for a Christmas release. Similar to the 2010 Alice in Wonderland, the film intends to act as a sequel to the original tale of the Nutcracker, where the world has fallen into disarray. Clara is the daughter of the original story's Marie, who has passed away, and looking to open the intriguing present left by her mother she finds herself following a mouse (not a rabbit!) into a strange world. She is introduced to the world her mother was made queen of, though sadly learns that the "fourth realm" (led by Helen Mirren as Mother Ginger) is at war with the other three (among them are realms led by Keira Knightley and an underused Richard E Grant).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Amy Curtis (49 KP) rated Christmas at Tiffany's in Books
Dec 31, 2018
Light hearted (1 more)
Easy Read
Power to the women!
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book was recommended to me by a friend and I wasn’t sure what to expect. The whole time I was reading it, anyone that saw the book in my hands would ask ‘is that similar to ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s?’ The short answer to that is no, not even close.
I must admit that I was quite confused by the start of the book and the prologue could have been explained a bit better. The story is focalised through Cassie who is celebrating 10 years of marriage with her husband. 3 of her friends have come to visit her in order to celebrate this ‘achievement’. However, things quickly turn sour and it’s revealed that her husband has been having an affair with her best friend and they even have a child together. Her 3 visitors whisk her away and it is agreed that she will spend 4 months with each of them in order to find herself again. She will have to find her feet in New York, Paris and then London (it can’t be all bad!).
This novel shows you a journey of a woman who has always depended on her relationship and who gains her independence and finds what she truly wants. Granted, there are parts that are incredibly cheesy but I think that is part of the beauty of it. It’s a predictable feel-good book but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As a woman, it has inspired and reminded me that relationships aren’t everything and a happily ever after can come at any moment. The novel excites you as the prospect of a new and better relationship unfolds for Cassie. Swan takes you into this world where anything is possible even for a woman with a broken heart.
This book doesn’t just appeal to women that have had their heart broken but also those that love to travel. It highlights different things to do in the three locations and makes you feel inspired to go and see these for yourself. It is a bitter sweet romance novel and I’m just waiting to find my own version of Henry.
Overall, it was an enjoyable read and something that I could happily pick up again. I must admit, I’m surprised that they have made an adaptation of this novel. It would be an ultimate chick flick!
I must admit that I was quite confused by the start of the book and the prologue could have been explained a bit better. The story is focalised through Cassie who is celebrating 10 years of marriage with her husband. 3 of her friends have come to visit her in order to celebrate this ‘achievement’. However, things quickly turn sour and it’s revealed that her husband has been having an affair with her best friend and they even have a child together. Her 3 visitors whisk her away and it is agreed that she will spend 4 months with each of them in order to find herself again. She will have to find her feet in New York, Paris and then London (it can’t be all bad!).
This novel shows you a journey of a woman who has always depended on her relationship and who gains her independence and finds what she truly wants. Granted, there are parts that are incredibly cheesy but I think that is part of the beauty of it. It’s a predictable feel-good book but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As a woman, it has inspired and reminded me that relationships aren’t everything and a happily ever after can come at any moment. The novel excites you as the prospect of a new and better relationship unfolds for Cassie. Swan takes you into this world where anything is possible even for a woman with a broken heart.
This book doesn’t just appeal to women that have had their heart broken but also those that love to travel. It highlights different things to do in the three locations and makes you feel inspired to go and see these for yourself. It is a bitter sweet romance novel and I’m just waiting to find my own version of Henry.
Overall, it was an enjoyable read and something that I could happily pick up again. I must admit, I’m surprised that they have made an adaptation of this novel. It would be an ultimate chick flick!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Papillon (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Henry “Papillon” Charriere (Charlie Hunnam) is a safecracker making his name in the Parisian underworld. But when he decides to keep some diamonds from a big score to himself his luck changes. He is framed for a murder and given a life sentence. Even worse for Papillon is that he is being shipped to the Devil’s Island penal colony in French Giana. With no chance at an appeal his only chance at freedom is to escape. On the long boat ride from France to South America he finds an unlikely ally in the form of the forger Louis Dega (Rami Malek). The slight and awkward Dega does not want to escape but rather just survive long enough to have his appeal heard. Papillon agrees to protect Dega in exchange for financing any escape plan Papillon can devise. With Dega’s financial backing Papillon now only has to figure out how to escape from prison no one has been known to escape from on an island surrounded by rivers and ocean, unforgiving jungle and guards who shoot to kill.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Based on the famous and beloved novel by Charles Dickens, Armando Iannucci (Veep, The Thick of It, The Death of Stalin) brings us this fresh new take on David Copperfield. And it’s like no other Dickens adaptation you’ve ever seen before.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Hard Cake
The personal history of david copperfield really disappointed me especially after such a cracking trailer and while no means a bad film it just really wasnt a film I enjoyed. What I was expecting was a sharply written, quirky yet dry and playful adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel something similar to a yorgos lanthimos film like the favorite for instance but sadly I found this movie to be extreamly dull, uninteresting and severely lacking overall. I wouldnt say its necessarily bad however it all just felt very flat to me. Characters didnt feel believable, humour seemed forced and while david patel burts at the seemes constantly with energy the film around him didnt seem to follow along the same. Very interesting ideas are present here and the emphases is on life almost being like a stage play with people we meet being the characters in it. See everyone in life is unique and has their own distinctive traits/interesting stories and no matter what happenes in our lives neither one is no less meaningless or important than the other. This does come across brilliantly and shows the bad traits of human nature, see everyone is on the path to happiness its just what they do and who they exploit or how much they choose to lie to get there and achieve sucess is diffrent from person to person. Then on a positive side it also shows how we should all realise where we have come from, to be greatful for what we have, to let our creativity flow and to appreciate these characters that enter our lives and inspire/care for us. So heres where I feel conflicted as much as I like these great ideas I feel they they just aren't integrated well enough with the dull story or the forced comedy and sure the film is well made but to watch its just not exciting or that engaging and the characters all became forgettable once off screen just like when watching a sketch show. Failing to keep my intrest constantly made the runtime feel a drag too and by the time I left I struggled to remember much of what had just happened infront of me wishing I'd of just stayed home and watched Perfume or The Favorite instead in the warm. No doubt some will enjoy this but will they be talking about it in a month? I highly doubt it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated This Is Where I Leave You (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is Where I Leave You focuses on Judd Altman (Jason Bateman) and his relationships with the many personalities in his family. We open the film with Judd walking in on his wife in bed with his boss. We flash forward about 3 months to find Judd feeling pretty miserable still, only to find out that his father passed away. And his father’s last wish is that his family sit Shiva (a Jewish tradition of mourning where the close relatives of the deceased sit for 7-days in the same house, as friends and family come by to offer their condolences. (There’s more to it than this, but it’s the general idea). Over the 7-days following the funeral, a rollercoaster of emotions, excitement and tragedy pass.
This film, in my opinion, is very smartly written. It has the qualities in a film that will attract men and women alike. They also create an atmosphere that most people can relate to. It’s simplistic formula really, there are enough siblings to exhibit the different personalities you can find in most families and no matter who you are, you will find someone to relate to in the cast. And, oh boy, what a cast. Judd’s siblings include Corey Stoll, Adam Driver and Tina Fey. Rounding out the close friends and family include Jane Fonda as mama Altman, Rose Byrne as Penny Moore, Connie Britton as girlfriend of Philip Altman (Driver), Timothy Olyphant as Horry, a man with brain damage who has a secret shared with one of the Altmans, and the list goes on and on (go look it up on IMdB already).
The premise is old, cliché jokes are used, and we all know how it ends. However, we don’t really know how it ends. The cast delivers so well that you can see past the recycled items to the true genius that this film is, and how great an adaptation it is from the book. While I haven’t read the book myself, I have been told it’s quite good. And if it’s half as good as this film, I’m definitely going to enjoy reading it.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for a great date movie this weekend, this is the one to see. You will not regret it, and will probably learn a little something about yourself too! This is another to add to my collection upon release.
This film, in my opinion, is very smartly written. It has the qualities in a film that will attract men and women alike. They also create an atmosphere that most people can relate to. It’s simplistic formula really, there are enough siblings to exhibit the different personalities you can find in most families and no matter who you are, you will find someone to relate to in the cast. And, oh boy, what a cast. Judd’s siblings include Corey Stoll, Adam Driver and Tina Fey. Rounding out the close friends and family include Jane Fonda as mama Altman, Rose Byrne as Penny Moore, Connie Britton as girlfriend of Philip Altman (Driver), Timothy Olyphant as Horry, a man with brain damage who has a secret shared with one of the Altmans, and the list goes on and on (go look it up on IMdB already).
The premise is old, cliché jokes are used, and we all know how it ends. However, we don’t really know how it ends. The cast delivers so well that you can see past the recycled items to the true genius that this film is, and how great an adaptation it is from the book. While I haven’t read the book myself, I have been told it’s quite good. And if it’s half as good as this film, I’m definitely going to enjoy reading it.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for a great date movie this weekend, this is the one to see. You will not regret it, and will probably learn a little something about yourself too! This is another to add to my collection upon release.
Andy K (10823 KP) Mar 16, 2018