Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Black Mass (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
He was one of the most dangerous men and most notorious gangsters in American history. For over sixteen years he evaded the FBI and law enforcement until his eventual capture in 2011. Black Mass tells the story of James “Whitey” Bulger and his alliance with the FBI. The film delves deep into the relationship that is built between Bulger and FBI agents which allows him to expand his power beyond the Boston area. Audiences will be awestruck by the actions permitted and overlooked on the part of FBI agents working with Bulger which fall in line with the advice that Bulger gives his son: “If no one saw it, it didn’t happen.”
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.
TeachMe: Preschool / Toddler
Education and Games
App
"***** An absolute must-buy. An amazing app for the price." -SmartAppsForKids.com "The combination...
Walden by Henry David Thoreau
Podcast
Two years, two months and two days! This is what forms the time line of one man's quest for the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Nashville (1975) in Movies
Jan 11, 2018
A landmark film
Nashville is a very difficult film to pin down. It refuses to be pigeonholed into a genre. (IMDB has it listed as a comedy, Google as Drama/Political Drama, and Wikipedia labels the film a Musical Comedy-Drama. In my opinion, Nashville is all of those things and maybe some more. It would be more beneficial to talk about Nashville, not in terms of how similar it is to any other film, but instead, explore how it is unique and entirely different from almost everything that came before it. Robert Altman attempted to subvert audience expectations in ways never before seen in Hollywood. Where most films try and limit the number of main characters the audience has to follow, Altman instead chose to populate his country music narrative with over 20 different protagonists. Each of these protagonists has their own story to tell and all of these stories are only loosely connected together. This may sound familiar to contemporary audiences who have seen films like Crash, Babel, and Magnolia fresh on their minds, but to a 1975 audience, this was all but unheard of. Altman furthers this sense of chaos by constantly overlapping dialogue tracks throughout the film. This tactic forces viewers to engage more closely to what they can hear during the scenes because it’s not always obvious what you should be listening to. Sometimes that choice is even quite subjective as in most cases there is no clear plot line that stands out as primary. One of the joys of this film comes from the choice you have as a spectator to focus on whatever interests you most. To a certain extent, this film lends itself to multiple viewings that could produce slightly different results each time. Something that might have slipped your attention the first time might stand out upon repeated viewings and that has the possibility to add to the story in interesting and unique ways. In dealing with over 20 characters Altman runs the risk of underdeveloped characters and unsatisfying conclusions to their stories. Not everyone has a satisfying payoff but some characters will surprise you during the final few scenes. Henry Gibson’s Haven rises above what was previously a one-note character of a person and responds to the climax in a surprisingly moving way. All in all, Nashville is an important piece of American cinema history. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea so it’s best to temper your expectations going into a viewing, but if you can keep your eyes and ears intently listening for the full two and a half hour film you will not be disappointed in the humanity you spot in each of these stories. This is a film that rewards an invested viewing.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr) is the perfect student. Captain of the high school track team, a passionate member of the school debating society, a great writer and a polite, grown-up young man that just seems too good to be true. Luce was adopted at the age of 9 from war-torn Eritrea by white couple Amy (Naomi Watts) and Peter (Tim Roth, sporting a pretty dodgy American accent). Following years of therapy and the devoted efforts of Amy and Peter, he seems to have successfully put his horrific and traumatic childhood behind him, embracing his future in America.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
EMS ALS Guide
Medical and Reference
App
The original EMS Field Guide® from Informed Publishing—the trusted leader in emergency reference...
Lonely Planet Best of USA
Lonely Planet, Amy C. Balfour, Sandra Bao and Karla Zimmerman
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet's Best of USA is your...
I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer
9.0
Rate It
Book
Introduction by Gillian Flynn Afterword by Patton Oswalt "This is a one sit-down read. That's how...
RD
Red Devils Over the Yalu: A Chronicle of Soviet Aerial Operations in the Korean War 1950-53
Stuart Britton and Igor Seidov
Book
The Korean War (1950-1953) was the first - and only - full-scale air war in the jet age. It was in...