Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The United States vs. Billie Holiday (2021) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Spasmodic biopic anchored by an astonishing performance by Andra Day
It's the late 40's in the US. We follow the distressing story of Billie Holiday (Andra Day) through her period of fame and drug addiction, while constantly pursued by Harry Anslinger (Garrett Hedlund) of the FBI. The reason? Holiday kept repeatedly singing the song "Strange Fruit" at her concerts, seen as being incendiary in support of the emerging civil rights movement. While surrounded by exploitative men, can she escape the destructive cycle and find true love with her "soldier boy" Jimmy Fletcher (Trevante Rhodes).
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Soulmate Equation in Books
May 27, 2021
A witty & wonderful romance!!
Jess Davis is a single mom who loves crunching numbers almost as much as she loves her daughter Juno and her grandparents. They are her entire world and honestly, she doesn't have a lot of desire to step back into the dating world. It's just so much work. Then Jess and her best friend, Fizzy, hear about GenticAlly, a new dating site that predicts love through your DNA. Matchmaking through genetics and numbers? Jess could get behind that. But it's not until she's had a particularly bad, lonely day that she agrees to send in a sample. Suddenly she finds out she's matched with GeneticAlly's founder, Dr. River Pena at an unheard sky-high percentage of 98% compatibility. However, Jess is immediately skeptical because she knows River. And he's a pompous jerk. But River and GeneticAlly have a proposition for Jess. Go out with River, get to know him, and they'll pay her for her time. For struggling Jess, this is something she has to consider. As the two go to dinner and do press for GeneticAlly, Jess starts to see a different side of River--one that makes her wonder if there's something to this DNA matching idea after all.
"Her life, which essentially existed in a four-block radius, was exceedingly manageable as it was."
Oh this book was so good!! I love Christina Lauren's books, and I was already intrigued by the idea of a DNA matchmaking book. Well, THE SOULMATE EQUATION did not disappoint! It's sweet and funny and interesting--I loved it!
SOULMATE has wonderful banter--that patented CLo banter--between River and Jess, but also Jess and Fizzy. Jess is a statistician and Fizzy a romance writer and they spend many of their days in a coffee shop, "working." Their friendship is next level good and freaking hilarious. Honestly, it's one of the best parts of the book. So is Jess' relationship with her grandparents, who basically raised her after her mom, who struggled with addiction, left. And then there's Juno, the cute precocious kid, who shows up asking funny questions and making you chuckle. The cast of characters is top notch, for sure. I loved how well Jess' family was woven into the story.
As for River and Jess, their chemistry is superb. They start off on the wrong foot, with River coming across as a jerk, but it's not anything too terrible, which is good, because I can't handle the "hate to love" scenarios when the "hate" seems impossible for anyone to actually overcome. Instead, River is a nuanced character with his own backstory and personality. He's consumed by the science of relationships but too busy being a genius doctor workaholic to have one. And sweet Jess, you can't help but root for her: the tired mom who lacks the energy to even try to date anymore. There's lots of science and numbers, but nothing crazy for us non-mathematicians, and honestly, the genetics aspect is pretty fascinating. (Is this really possible, world?) I saw a bit of the big twist plot point coming, but it in no way diminished my enjoyment of the story.
Overall, this was a great read. Funny, witty, and heartfelt. Great couple with awesome chemistry. Wonderful cast of characters (Fizzy needs her own book!). The entire book made me smile--definitely recommend! 4.5 stars.
"Her life, which essentially existed in a four-block radius, was exceedingly manageable as it was."
Oh this book was so good!! I love Christina Lauren's books, and I was already intrigued by the idea of a DNA matchmaking book. Well, THE SOULMATE EQUATION did not disappoint! It's sweet and funny and interesting--I loved it!
SOULMATE has wonderful banter--that patented CLo banter--between River and Jess, but also Jess and Fizzy. Jess is a statistician and Fizzy a romance writer and they spend many of their days in a coffee shop, "working." Their friendship is next level good and freaking hilarious. Honestly, it's one of the best parts of the book. So is Jess' relationship with her grandparents, who basically raised her after her mom, who struggled with addiction, left. And then there's Juno, the cute precocious kid, who shows up asking funny questions and making you chuckle. The cast of characters is top notch, for sure. I loved how well Jess' family was woven into the story.
As for River and Jess, their chemistry is superb. They start off on the wrong foot, with River coming across as a jerk, but it's not anything too terrible, which is good, because I can't handle the "hate to love" scenarios when the "hate" seems impossible for anyone to actually overcome. Instead, River is a nuanced character with his own backstory and personality. He's consumed by the science of relationships but too busy being a genius doctor workaholic to have one. And sweet Jess, you can't help but root for her: the tired mom who lacks the energy to even try to date anymore. There's lots of science and numbers, but nothing crazy for us non-mathematicians, and honestly, the genetics aspect is pretty fascinating. (Is this really possible, world?) I saw a bit of the big twist plot point coming, but it in no way diminished my enjoyment of the story.
Overall, this was a great read. Funny, witty, and heartfelt. Great couple with awesome chemistry. Wonderful cast of characters (Fizzy needs her own book!). The entire book made me smile--definitely recommend! 4.5 stars.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Between Me and You in Books
Dec 23, 2017
confusing (1 more)
repetitive
Repetitive but oddly compelling romance
When Ben Livingston and Tatum Connelly meet, they are both dreaming of success in Hollywood--Ben as a scriptwriter and Tatum as an actress. It's Ben who hits it big first, becoming Hollywood's It Guy and a Sundance favorite. But over time, his star slowly fades while Tatum rises to a stardom neither could have ever fully imagined. Along the way, the two wed, have a son, and experience a variety of ups and downs in their marriage. This includes several losses in their personal lives and slowly drifting apart. They once were incredibly close and deeply in love; can their love sustain everything that life throws at them?
This was a really interesting book, starting with the format. The story is told from both Tatum and Ben's perspectives. No big deal, you think, right? Except Tatum's portions start at the beginning of their journey and go in chronological order, while Ben tells his part of the story backward, starting with how they've fallen apart and going back in time. It's an odd device and definitely takes some getting used to. It was hard to keep some of the dates and timelines straight; it was one of the times where I wished I had a hardcopy of the book so I could flip back and forth more easily.
It also seemed to make the story more repetitive--when you have two people telling the same stories, you're bound to get some repetition. But what was really strange was that it sometimes felt like each chapter was a mini story that needed to reintroduce everything all over again. I don't know why the author felt this was necessary, because it's an oddly compelling book on its own even when neither main character is really that likeable. But we heard over and over about Tatum and Ben's daddy issues, career issues, that he never wrote anything for her. And oh yeah, did we mention that Tatum's an actress and doesn't eat, etc.?
At the core, this isn't really a happy book, despite it being romantic at times. Both Tatum and Ben have a lot of petty issues, but also really serious issues relating to their parents. This is fine, except we hear about it (a lot) due to the repetitive way the story is told. There's a lot of mourning and grieving and there's a dark side that deals with addiction, too. The focus on that fact that Ben has never written a script for Tatum--while this does have a point in the end--this gets to be a little much, too. The problem with all the focus on these things is that I felt like I never really learn a lot about Tatum and Ben in this format. I was always yearning for more. Is the story of two people growing apart interesting? Am I invested in them? (I was.)
It's sad, because despite everything I have said, I found this book weirdly compelling. Maybe it's because Tatum is a famous actress and there's a Hollywood setting, even if it's not really fleshed out. I wanted to know more about Tatum and Ben. I wanted them to work out. I wanted to read the book, even with the odd format and rehashing of things. It's a little hard to describe. It's like watching a romantic comedy where you desperately want the two leads to get together, despite all the odds.
So, I'm still glad I read this one. It was engaging and different. I do wish I knew more about Ben and Tatum and their motivations and what led them together (and apart).
This was a really interesting book, starting with the format. The story is told from both Tatum and Ben's perspectives. No big deal, you think, right? Except Tatum's portions start at the beginning of their journey and go in chronological order, while Ben tells his part of the story backward, starting with how they've fallen apart and going back in time. It's an odd device and definitely takes some getting used to. It was hard to keep some of the dates and timelines straight; it was one of the times where I wished I had a hardcopy of the book so I could flip back and forth more easily.
It also seemed to make the story more repetitive--when you have two people telling the same stories, you're bound to get some repetition. But what was really strange was that it sometimes felt like each chapter was a mini story that needed to reintroduce everything all over again. I don't know why the author felt this was necessary, because it's an oddly compelling book on its own even when neither main character is really that likeable. But we heard over and over about Tatum and Ben's daddy issues, career issues, that he never wrote anything for her. And oh yeah, did we mention that Tatum's an actress and doesn't eat, etc.?
At the core, this isn't really a happy book, despite it being romantic at times. Both Tatum and Ben have a lot of petty issues, but also really serious issues relating to their parents. This is fine, except we hear about it (a lot) due to the repetitive way the story is told. There's a lot of mourning and grieving and there's a dark side that deals with addiction, too. The focus on that fact that Ben has never written a script for Tatum--while this does have a point in the end--this gets to be a little much, too. The problem with all the focus on these things is that I felt like I never really learn a lot about Tatum and Ben in this format. I was always yearning for more. Is the story of two people growing apart interesting? Am I invested in them? (I was.)
It's sad, because despite everything I have said, I found this book weirdly compelling. Maybe it's because Tatum is a famous actress and there's a Hollywood setting, even if it's not really fleshed out. I wanted to know more about Tatum and Ben. I wanted them to work out. I wanted to read the book, even with the odd format and rehashing of things. It's a little hard to describe. It's like watching a romantic comedy where you desperately want the two leads to get together, despite all the odds.
So, I'm still glad I read this one. It was engaging and different. I do wish I knew more about Ben and Tatum and their motivations and what led them together (and apart).
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dolls (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Dolls starts when alcoholic children’s book author Robert Holbrook (Downey) moves into his recently deceased mother’s home to start work on his latest work, when he is joined by his teenage daughter Sammey (Simpson) who wants to get away from her mother.
When Robert and Sammey discover three creepy dolls in the attic, Robert decides that he wants to use these characters to create his latest story, known as the Attic Dolls. When a sister of a former patient Margaret (Wallace) appears, she warns Sammey about the evil inside the dolls that come out to play when you look away.
Thoughts on Dolls
Characters – Robert is an alcoholic children’s author, he has made mistakes in his life which has left his family facing financial ruin, his daughter struggle to be able to face a college future, he has moved out to focus on his new book, which will see him being joined by his daughter. The latest book idea uses the creepy dolls found in the attic of his mother’s home, which will see him suffer nightmares as he looks to withdraw from his drinking problems. Sammey is his 17-year-old daughter who wants to live with him over her mother, she has been on certain medications, though it is unclear what is wrong with her to need them. She first gets scared by the dolls believing the story she hears about them, while trying to remain rebellious about her future. Margaret was the sister of one of the patient’s of Robert’s mother, she warns the family about the evil from the dolls which might be connected to the deaths.
Performances – Thomas Downey is strong through the film, we believe that he is going through troubles. Trinity Simpson is entertaining in her role, she brings the fear of what is going on to make us believe everything happening. Dee Wallace is the biggest name in the film, she is in a supporting role, which lets her bring the experience to the film.
Story – The story here follows a family that move into a house of a deceased relative only to discover three creepy dolls in the attic, soon strange things start happening around the house as it appears the dolls come to life when people aren’t looking. This story does play into the creepy dolls genre of horror which does to use mental health and addiction to try and reflect the situation going on through the events of the film. It does start by going in one direction, but it does feel like it is going to target on a rampage, then throws another twist to them in and it does seem to rush a lot of the story going on through the film. it does end in a very confusing manor which could make most of the film feel almost redundant.
Horror – The horror in this comes from the dolls which do feel creepy and make us feel uneasy wondering what they will be doing next.
Settings – The film is set in the one location which is the house, it is filled with locations where the dolls could sneak around without being seen, only heard, which does play into the rules created.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are only used when they are needed, they are simply with certain small movements which does help the film unfold.
Scene of the Movie – The dolls appearance.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The ending.
Final Thoughts – This is a new creepy doll movie, which has been the it feature at the moment, with Child’s Play and Annabelle in the cinema, this one does have a creepy feel to it even if the story does seem to be rushed.
Overall: Creepy Fun horror.
When Robert and Sammey discover three creepy dolls in the attic, Robert decides that he wants to use these characters to create his latest story, known as the Attic Dolls. When a sister of a former patient Margaret (Wallace) appears, she warns Sammey about the evil inside the dolls that come out to play when you look away.
Thoughts on Dolls
Characters – Robert is an alcoholic children’s author, he has made mistakes in his life which has left his family facing financial ruin, his daughter struggle to be able to face a college future, he has moved out to focus on his new book, which will see him being joined by his daughter. The latest book idea uses the creepy dolls found in the attic of his mother’s home, which will see him suffer nightmares as he looks to withdraw from his drinking problems. Sammey is his 17-year-old daughter who wants to live with him over her mother, she has been on certain medications, though it is unclear what is wrong with her to need them. She first gets scared by the dolls believing the story she hears about them, while trying to remain rebellious about her future. Margaret was the sister of one of the patient’s of Robert’s mother, she warns the family about the evil from the dolls which might be connected to the deaths.
Performances – Thomas Downey is strong through the film, we believe that he is going through troubles. Trinity Simpson is entertaining in her role, she brings the fear of what is going on to make us believe everything happening. Dee Wallace is the biggest name in the film, she is in a supporting role, which lets her bring the experience to the film.
Story – The story here follows a family that move into a house of a deceased relative only to discover three creepy dolls in the attic, soon strange things start happening around the house as it appears the dolls come to life when people aren’t looking. This story does play into the creepy dolls genre of horror which does to use mental health and addiction to try and reflect the situation going on through the events of the film. It does start by going in one direction, but it does feel like it is going to target on a rampage, then throws another twist to them in and it does seem to rush a lot of the story going on through the film. it does end in a very confusing manor which could make most of the film feel almost redundant.
Horror – The horror in this comes from the dolls which do feel creepy and make us feel uneasy wondering what they will be doing next.
Settings – The film is set in the one location which is the house, it is filled with locations where the dolls could sneak around without being seen, only heard, which does play into the rules created.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are only used when they are needed, they are simply with certain small movements which does help the film unfold.
Scene of the Movie – The dolls appearance.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The ending.
Final Thoughts – This is a new creepy doll movie, which has been the it feature at the moment, with Child’s Play and Annabelle in the cinema, this one does have a creepy feel to it even if the story does seem to be rushed.
Overall: Creepy Fun horror.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Into the disturbing mind of a serial killer..
The human mind is still one of those ultimate enigmas of life. How does it work exactly? Nature vs. nurture? What causes some of us to devote their lives to philanthropy and helping others whilst others of us are deeply disturbed devoting their existence to the destruction of life for their twisted, demented pleasure?
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Tropic Thunder (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Deep in the jungles of Vietnam, one of the most expensive films in history is underway. The film is based upon a best seller by war hero Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte), and stars three of the biggest stars in Hollywood so naturally expectations are very high for the film to become a box office blockbuster.
Unfortunately the production is troubled by one gaffe after another and finds itself lost in budget over runs, issues amongst the stars, and more drama than a Shakespeare festival.
The film is “Tropical Thunder” and Director and star Ben Stiller has assembled a talented cast that includes Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. in a biting satire of the Hollywood machine.
Stiller stars as Tugg Speedman, a declining action star who sees the war film as his big chance to break away from his recent failures and move into more serious work. Tugg is overshadowed by the presence of multiple Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), who prepares for a part so intensely that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. Toward that end, he has undergone a skin pigment procedure in order to portray an African American soldier.
Rounding out the group, literally, is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), the star of flatulence based film comedy series and a man wracked by addiction to the point that he hides his drugs in a candy package and refers to them as his jelly beans.
After a staggeringly costly and impressive pyrotechnic display by the sets explosive expert Cody (Danny Mc Bride), the film is in danger of being halted by the money behind the film, an intensely angry Producer named Les Grossman (Tom Cruise).
In an effort to keep his film alive and salvage their careers, Four Leaf and the film’s Director decide to drop the cast in the thick of the jungle and shoot the film gorilla style with hidden cameras and various tricks to produce a grittier film and get the cast to start acting like the soldiers they are supposed to be portraying.
In a hilarious turn of events, the cast ends up trapped in the jungle and surrounded by members of the locale drug cartel. Convinced that it is all part of the film, Tugg and company blindly trudge along thinking all is going as scripted until things go hopelessly wrong, and force the cast to come to grips with the situation as well as their fragile egos and personal issues.
While the premise of the film is solid, and there are a good number of laughs in the film, for the most part “Tropic Thunder” is a hit or miss venture.
Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in his portrayal as he constantly steals his scenes with his expressions and one liners and almost single handled carries the film during some of the more tedious moments.
Stiller plays the patented Stiller character once again, the slow witted loser with a heart of gold, and despite his efforts, he is just not given enough material to fully push his character over the top, despite some funny moments.
The biggest disappointment for me was Jack Black who is sadly underused in the film. Jack is a very gifted and talented actor but he is given very little to work with, and precious few moments to let his talents shine. Owen Wilson was originally supposed to be in the film, and at times it seems that this part was written more with Wilson’s more subdued style of humor in mind.
Aside from the laughs, the film does have an abundance of celebrity cameos, and this truly helps the film. Sadly though, the plot really does not do justice to the premise nor talent in the film, and unfolds in a very unspectacular manner that had me expecting more.
This is not to say it is a bad film as I found myself laughing on more than one occasion, sadly it became fewer and father between laughs as the film unfolded to a very disappointing finale.
Unfortunately the production is troubled by one gaffe after another and finds itself lost in budget over runs, issues amongst the stars, and more drama than a Shakespeare festival.
The film is “Tropical Thunder” and Director and star Ben Stiller has assembled a talented cast that includes Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. in a biting satire of the Hollywood machine.
Stiller stars as Tugg Speedman, a declining action star who sees the war film as his big chance to break away from his recent failures and move into more serious work. Tugg is overshadowed by the presence of multiple Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), who prepares for a part so intensely that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. Toward that end, he has undergone a skin pigment procedure in order to portray an African American soldier.
Rounding out the group, literally, is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), the star of flatulence based film comedy series and a man wracked by addiction to the point that he hides his drugs in a candy package and refers to them as his jelly beans.
After a staggeringly costly and impressive pyrotechnic display by the sets explosive expert Cody (Danny Mc Bride), the film is in danger of being halted by the money behind the film, an intensely angry Producer named Les Grossman (Tom Cruise).
In an effort to keep his film alive and salvage their careers, Four Leaf and the film’s Director decide to drop the cast in the thick of the jungle and shoot the film gorilla style with hidden cameras and various tricks to produce a grittier film and get the cast to start acting like the soldiers they are supposed to be portraying.
In a hilarious turn of events, the cast ends up trapped in the jungle and surrounded by members of the locale drug cartel. Convinced that it is all part of the film, Tugg and company blindly trudge along thinking all is going as scripted until things go hopelessly wrong, and force the cast to come to grips with the situation as well as their fragile egos and personal issues.
While the premise of the film is solid, and there are a good number of laughs in the film, for the most part “Tropic Thunder” is a hit or miss venture.
Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in his portrayal as he constantly steals his scenes with his expressions and one liners and almost single handled carries the film during some of the more tedious moments.
Stiller plays the patented Stiller character once again, the slow witted loser with a heart of gold, and despite his efforts, he is just not given enough material to fully push his character over the top, despite some funny moments.
The biggest disappointment for me was Jack Black who is sadly underused in the film. Jack is a very gifted and talented actor but he is given very little to work with, and precious few moments to let his talents shine. Owen Wilson was originally supposed to be in the film, and at times it seems that this part was written more with Wilson’s more subdued style of humor in mind.
Aside from the laughs, the film does have an abundance of celebrity cameos, and this truly helps the film. Sadly though, the plot really does not do justice to the premise nor talent in the film, and unfolds in a very unspectacular manner that had me expecting more.
This is not to say it is a bad film as I found myself laughing on more than one occasion, sadly it became fewer and father between laughs as the film unfolded to a very disappointing finale.