Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Prestige (2006) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Criminally underrated
Film #10 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Prestige
The Prestige is one of 3 Christopher Nolan films on this bucket list (the others being Memento and The Dark Knight), and probably the one that has least recognition out of the the three. In fact I’d say it’s criminally underrated. It focuses on two rival magicians in Victorian London, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), as a tragic accident gives rise to a bitter escalating feud. Supporting are Michael Caine as stage magic designer and engineer Cutter, Scarlett Johansson as magician’s assistant Olivia, Rebecca Hall as Borden’s wife Sarah and a brief appearance from Andy Serkis and the great David Bowie as Nikola Tesla and his assistant.
From the very start, The Prestige asks us the age old magician’s phrase “Are you watching closely?” and is very much a hint at events to come, warning us that we should be paying attention. And with this being a Christopher Nolan film, this shouldn’t be a surprise. The Prestige starts at the end, with an intriguing image of dozens of discarded top hats explaining magic tricks and the meaning behind the film’s title, and is followed by the death of one of the main characters and subsequent incarceration of another. It continues in typical Nolan style, jumping between the prison, Angier’s journey to visit Nikola Tesla and telling the story of both magicians and their feud from the very beginning. A tad confusing at times, but it wouldn’t be a Nolan film with a some time travelling story telling.
Magic isn’t probably something that appeals as much now as it did back when this film is set. Victorian London is a perfect setting at a time when magic was very much a fascination and a popular form of entertainment, and the costumes and set design for this period are very well done and in keeping with the dark and dreary setting. Yet strangely despite this, The Prestige never feels like a run of the mill period drama. The cast too are perfect for their roles and also help to make magic a lot more appealing. Christian Bale’s cockney Borden is exactly what you’d expect from him yet couldn’t imagine anyone else playing the role, especially with such an awkward verging on unlikeable character, and it’s refreshing to see Hugh Jackman play a part where he isn’t a completely nice or likeable person. And of course it wouldn’t be a Christopher Nolan film without Michael Caine, who brings some much needed humour and exposition. The only drag is unfortunately Scarlett Johansson, whose dodgy English accent pulls us away from anything she puts into her performance.
The Prestige is a slow burn murder mystery, that almost feels like a gothic horror at times with some sci-fi aspects thrown in. The plot has a vast amount of twists and turns and you really do have to be watching closely to understand it all and the ending itself and the final twist is probably the most polarising of them all. For me, the first time I watched this I never saw this twist coming. It truly shocked me, despite the many nods the film gives to the twist throughout. Watching this back now years later, I have to admit that the twist is actually a little predictable when you really think about it. But the feeling of astonishment I had watching this for the first time was second to none. What is most strange though, is that the most confusing thing in this entire film isn’t the twists and turns, it’s the fact that both Angier and Norden can dress up in ridiculously fake disguises to fool each other and ruin the tricks. This does spoil things a little.
I’ve always loved magic and grew up watching many magic shows on TV when I was younger. For me Nolan has brought back that love and appeal of magic, with a hugely entertaining and captivating story. It may not be perfect and the ending may lose some of it’s shine after the first watch, but it’s still another brilliant film from Christopher Nolan.
The Prestige is one of 3 Christopher Nolan films on this bucket list (the others being Memento and The Dark Knight), and probably the one that has least recognition out of the the three. In fact I’d say it’s criminally underrated. It focuses on two rival magicians in Victorian London, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), as a tragic accident gives rise to a bitter escalating feud. Supporting are Michael Caine as stage magic designer and engineer Cutter, Scarlett Johansson as magician’s assistant Olivia, Rebecca Hall as Borden’s wife Sarah and a brief appearance from Andy Serkis and the great David Bowie as Nikola Tesla and his assistant.
From the very start, The Prestige asks us the age old magician’s phrase “Are you watching closely?” and is very much a hint at events to come, warning us that we should be paying attention. And with this being a Christopher Nolan film, this shouldn’t be a surprise. The Prestige starts at the end, with an intriguing image of dozens of discarded top hats explaining magic tricks and the meaning behind the film’s title, and is followed by the death of one of the main characters and subsequent incarceration of another. It continues in typical Nolan style, jumping between the prison, Angier’s journey to visit Nikola Tesla and telling the story of both magicians and their feud from the very beginning. A tad confusing at times, but it wouldn’t be a Nolan film with a some time travelling story telling.
Magic isn’t probably something that appeals as much now as it did back when this film is set. Victorian London is a perfect setting at a time when magic was very much a fascination and a popular form of entertainment, and the costumes and set design for this period are very well done and in keeping with the dark and dreary setting. Yet strangely despite this, The Prestige never feels like a run of the mill period drama. The cast too are perfect for their roles and also help to make magic a lot more appealing. Christian Bale’s cockney Borden is exactly what you’d expect from him yet couldn’t imagine anyone else playing the role, especially with such an awkward verging on unlikeable character, and it’s refreshing to see Hugh Jackman play a part where he isn’t a completely nice or likeable person. And of course it wouldn’t be a Christopher Nolan film without Michael Caine, who brings some much needed humour and exposition. The only drag is unfortunately Scarlett Johansson, whose dodgy English accent pulls us away from anything she puts into her performance.
The Prestige is a slow burn murder mystery, that almost feels like a gothic horror at times with some sci-fi aspects thrown in. The plot has a vast amount of twists and turns and you really do have to be watching closely to understand it all and the ending itself and the final twist is probably the most polarising of them all. For me, the first time I watched this I never saw this twist coming. It truly shocked me, despite the many nods the film gives to the twist throughout. Watching this back now years later, I have to admit that the twist is actually a little predictable when you really think about it. But the feeling of astonishment I had watching this for the first time was second to none. What is most strange though, is that the most confusing thing in this entire film isn’t the twists and turns, it’s the fact that both Angier and Norden can dress up in ridiculously fake disguises to fool each other and ruin the tricks. This does spoil things a little.
I’ve always loved magic and grew up watching many magic shows on TV when I was younger. For me Nolan has brought back that love and appeal of magic, with a hugely entertaining and captivating story. It may not be perfect and the ending may lose some of it’s shine after the first watch, but it’s still another brilliant film from Christopher Nolan.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021 (Updated May 23, 2021)
Guy Ritchie’s newest film, Wrath of Man, is based upon a French film called le Convoyeur, or ‘Cash Truck’. It’s one of the first ‘big’ films that’s only been released in theaters here in the US.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hitch (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
February is the time of year when thoughts turn to romance and the coming spring. It is also the time of year when Hollywood brings new romantic themed films to the theaters in an effort to open big, thanks to the date movie crowd.
Some of the efforts, such as last weekend’s The Wedding Date, never take off, while others, such as Hitch provide a nice mix of romance and comedy which, for the most part, work very well.
The film follows the exploits of urban legend Alex Hitch Hitchens (Will Smith), a self-styled date doctor who specializes in helping men romance the lady of their dreams. Hitch does not provide a dating service but rather helps his clients with their confidence and instructs them on the true way to win and keep and ladies heart.
With his proven results and good rapport with his clients, Hitch is a man in demand, yet due to his policy of privacy and secrecy, to many, the so-called love doctor is little more than an urban myth which is just fine with Hitch. He would rather work in the shadows than bask in the limelight. The adoration of his clients is all he needs. Well, that and a steady supply of ladies to charm at the days end.
Hitch is about to face his toughest case yet in a kind but portly accountant named Albert (Kevin James) who is desperate to win the heart of his wealthy socialite client Allegra (Amber Valletta). When Albert and Allegra start to be seen with one another in public, they catch the eye of celebrity snoop Sara (Eve Mendes), who becomes determined to see what is behind this unexpected couple, which in turn leads her to believe that the so-called Date Doctor is a reality.
If matters were not complicated enough, Hitch starts to see Sara on a social basis with each of them unaware of what the other really does. Sparks fly despite the unflappable and smooth Hitch having one thing after another go awry. Sara really seems to be effecting him, and the more pathetic and hopeless he seems, the more they are drawn to one another.
Instead of turning the film into a whimsical lark, Director Andy Tennant, who helmed the recent Sweet Home Alabama manages to balance comedy with romance, all the while keeping a little bit of drama involved.
Mendes and Smith have good chemistry with one another, as do Smith and James. Smith is very solid and likeable as the charming Hitch. He plays him as a smooth and confident guy, who is actually more reserved and cautious on the inside. The duality of his character is clear without being overwhelming, leaving him not only likeable, but as a character that is easy to root for. The biggest surprise of the film would be Kevin James. His portrayal of Albert is a solid mix of humor and decency. James gets many laughs with Albert’s attempt at being suave, as he portrays a very realistic and believable character who is struggling to find his inner confidence and let his body and voice convey what he has in his heart.
The film does lose momentum during the final twenty minutes when it becomes lazy, resorting to many standard situations that have been done many times before. That being said Hitch as a whole works, and if you are willing to overlook a few blemishes, you may find yourself enjoying the warmth, humor and charm.
Some of the efforts, such as last weekend’s The Wedding Date, never take off, while others, such as Hitch provide a nice mix of romance and comedy which, for the most part, work very well.
The film follows the exploits of urban legend Alex Hitch Hitchens (Will Smith), a self-styled date doctor who specializes in helping men romance the lady of their dreams. Hitch does not provide a dating service but rather helps his clients with their confidence and instructs them on the true way to win and keep and ladies heart.
With his proven results and good rapport with his clients, Hitch is a man in demand, yet due to his policy of privacy and secrecy, to many, the so-called love doctor is little more than an urban myth which is just fine with Hitch. He would rather work in the shadows than bask in the limelight. The adoration of his clients is all he needs. Well, that and a steady supply of ladies to charm at the days end.
Hitch is about to face his toughest case yet in a kind but portly accountant named Albert (Kevin James) who is desperate to win the heart of his wealthy socialite client Allegra (Amber Valletta). When Albert and Allegra start to be seen with one another in public, they catch the eye of celebrity snoop Sara (Eve Mendes), who becomes determined to see what is behind this unexpected couple, which in turn leads her to believe that the so-called Date Doctor is a reality.
If matters were not complicated enough, Hitch starts to see Sara on a social basis with each of them unaware of what the other really does. Sparks fly despite the unflappable and smooth Hitch having one thing after another go awry. Sara really seems to be effecting him, and the more pathetic and hopeless he seems, the more they are drawn to one another.
Instead of turning the film into a whimsical lark, Director Andy Tennant, who helmed the recent Sweet Home Alabama manages to balance comedy with romance, all the while keeping a little bit of drama involved.
Mendes and Smith have good chemistry with one another, as do Smith and James. Smith is very solid and likeable as the charming Hitch. He plays him as a smooth and confident guy, who is actually more reserved and cautious on the inside. The duality of his character is clear without being overwhelming, leaving him not only likeable, but as a character that is easy to root for. The biggest surprise of the film would be Kevin James. His portrayal of Albert is a solid mix of humor and decency. James gets many laughs with Albert’s attempt at being suave, as he portrays a very realistic and believable character who is struggling to find his inner confidence and let his body and voice convey what he has in his heart.
The film does lose momentum during the final twenty minutes when it becomes lazy, resorting to many standard situations that have been done many times before. That being said Hitch as a whole works, and if you are willing to overlook a few blemishes, you may find yourself enjoying the warmth, humor and charm.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When his small paper is bought out but a large media conglomerate the free-spirited journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) quits rather write for a company he believes has a low moral compass. His best friend Lance (O’Shea Jackson Jr.) takes him out on the town to drown his sorrows. They decide to go to a charity function to get free drinks and watch Boyz II Men. As chance would have it Fred’s babysitter from high school, Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), is also there. Charlotte happens to be one of the most powerful women in the world. She is currently the Secretary of State and has her eyes set on the on the White House. But she recognizes Fred and they connect for a few moments. This chance meeting seems fortuitous for both. Fred needs a job and Charlotte is in need of a writer to help punch up her speeches. Fred also gets the chance to travel the world with his high school crush. Even though Fred isn’t your normal member of a government official’s entourage, dresses like a child, has a scraggly beard and looks high even when not, he can write. So he gets the chance to write entire speeches. As his role increases he needs to get to know this version of Charlotte a little better, rather than the girl he know in high school. They begin to spend more and more time together getting to know each other. Then a near death experience in Manilla leads to a wild night between the odd couple. But rather than a onetime thing the two begin sneaking away together. But as Charlotte heads toward a Presidential Campaign it seem inevitable that this secret relationship needs to end or go public.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Kill the Messenger (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For those of you who don’t know the true story behind Kill the Messenger I won’t spoil anything for you in this review. I will just review the movie in general terms and talk about the performances.
The very basic premise that you pick up from seeing any trailers for this movie is that Kill the Messenger is about a reporter from a San Jose news paper that breaks a huge story that puts him in the national spot light and possibly in danger.
Jeremy Renner who plays the main character is fantastic in his role and really carries the movie as he has proven being very capable of in other great movies. He is so believable in his role. You really care about his character almost from the beginning and from then on out you are totally bought in. Renner has that “it” factor that makes you root so hard for him no matter what role he is playing in. He’s just a really likable guy.
The story is real and I knew the basics, so there really were no shocking moments but the movie still does a great job of telling a compelling tale. The pacing is good but still has the dramatic pauses and uncomfortable moments that all dramas need. The movie runs about 2 hours and it feels perfect, not too long or short.
For the most part the supporting actors fade away around Renner, but Rosemarie DeWitt who plays the spouse of the main character put in a solid performance. There are some miss steps such as watching Andy Garcia trying way to hard to act and a small part for Ray Liotta in the only underacted role in his entire career. Liotta is typically a scene stealer and even he wasn’t able to take the shine off of Renner.
Ultimately this isn’t the best drama this season, but its a great story that deserved the true Hollywood treatment and it got what it deserved with this film. I never looked at my watch during the entire movie. I just sat back, had a cold drink and a bag of popcorn and really enjoyed watching the story unfold.
Well told story, solid acting, good pacing, Jeremy Renner, go see it.
http://sknr.net/2014/10/10/kill-messenger/
The very basic premise that you pick up from seeing any trailers for this movie is that Kill the Messenger is about a reporter from a San Jose news paper that breaks a huge story that puts him in the national spot light and possibly in danger.
Jeremy Renner who plays the main character is fantastic in his role and really carries the movie as he has proven being very capable of in other great movies. He is so believable in his role. You really care about his character almost from the beginning and from then on out you are totally bought in. Renner has that “it” factor that makes you root so hard for him no matter what role he is playing in. He’s just a really likable guy.
The story is real and I knew the basics, so there really were no shocking moments but the movie still does a great job of telling a compelling tale. The pacing is good but still has the dramatic pauses and uncomfortable moments that all dramas need. The movie runs about 2 hours and it feels perfect, not too long or short.
For the most part the supporting actors fade away around Renner, but Rosemarie DeWitt who plays the spouse of the main character put in a solid performance. There are some miss steps such as watching Andy Garcia trying way to hard to act and a small part for Ray Liotta in the only underacted role in his entire career. Liotta is typically a scene stealer and even he wasn’t able to take the shine off of Renner.
Ultimately this isn’t the best drama this season, but its a great story that deserved the true Hollywood treatment and it got what it deserved with this film. I never looked at my watch during the entire movie. I just sat back, had a cold drink and a bag of popcorn and really enjoyed watching the story unfold.
Well told story, solid acting, good pacing, Jeremy Renner, go see it.
http://sknr.net/2014/10/10/kill-messenger/
Kelly (279 KP) rated Spartacus - Season 1 in TV
Dec 21, 2018
Gladiators (1 more)
Great fighting scenes
Much better than the 1960 film
Who would have thought that the story of Spartacus could have been made raunchy for a modern audience, but Starz did this really well. The general facts around the slave rebellion against the Romans, led by the former gladiator Spartacus are limited, however Starz used what information there was and filled in the rest to create a believable version of the tale.
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Bells On Her Toes in Books
Nov 8, 2019
When a body is discovered in a burnt-out barn, DCI Peter Hatherall and DI Fiona Williams are assigned to investigate. The barn is owned by a racehorse trainer and the two detectives struggle to penetrate the closed and secretive world of horse racing to uncover who the body is and why they were murdered. As the body count rises Hatharall's personal life starts to impact on his professional judgement putting not only the investigation but lives at risk.
The police procedural has a long and distinguished history and Febry does an excellent job in following the formula and adding enough twists and turns to keep the reader guessing. Everything is told from a personal point of view (mostly Williams') and the author does a great job in conveying personality through how events are described. One of the key suspects also provides some of their thoughts between chapters and this very effectively cranks the tension up.
The cast of characters is very convincing. The detective with personal problems has very much become a cliche but Hatherall is drawn in a very realistic and human light and is clearly struggling. Williams has her own relationship issues and their interaction has a ring of authenticity. The cast of suspects is wide and a number of them could easily be guily. What is certain is that it will take time for all the secrets to be uncovered.
The plot has many twists and plenty of red herrings for both the reader and the detectives to fall foul of. The stakes are constantly raised until the final confrontation.
When reading this book I was reminded of one of my favourite detective thriller novelists, Reginald Hill. The characterisation, the plot twists and some of the way Febry plays with the reader's expectations reminded so much of a Dalziel and Pascoe novel. I think that's a very fair comparison and although Peter Hathersall is not at all like Andy Dalziel he is still a detective who works with both facts and instinct
This books is part of a series (and indeed one of the other books in the series is mentioned in passing) and if this novel is anything to go by the series is one to read as soon as possible. Anyone who likes a good detective novel with interesting characters and plenty of twists will like this. A lot.
The police procedural has a long and distinguished history and Febry does an excellent job in following the formula and adding enough twists and turns to keep the reader guessing. Everything is told from a personal point of view (mostly Williams') and the author does a great job in conveying personality through how events are described. One of the key suspects also provides some of their thoughts between chapters and this very effectively cranks the tension up.
The cast of characters is very convincing. The detective with personal problems has very much become a cliche but Hatherall is drawn in a very realistic and human light and is clearly struggling. Williams has her own relationship issues and their interaction has a ring of authenticity. The cast of suspects is wide and a number of them could easily be guily. What is certain is that it will take time for all the secrets to be uncovered.
The plot has many twists and plenty of red herrings for both the reader and the detectives to fall foul of. The stakes are constantly raised until the final confrontation.
When reading this book I was reminded of one of my favourite detective thriller novelists, Reginald Hill. The characterisation, the plot twists and some of the way Febry plays with the reader's expectations reminded so much of a Dalziel and Pascoe novel. I think that's a very fair comparison and although Peter Hathersall is not at all like Andy Dalziel he is still a detective who works with both facts and instinct
This books is part of a series (and indeed one of the other books in the series is mentioned in passing) and if this novel is anything to go by the series is one to read as soon as possible. Anyone who likes a good detective novel with interesting characters and plenty of twists will like this. A lot.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hot Rod (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up their successful sting on Saturday Night Live, the video masterminds behind such hits as “Lazy Sunday, and “Dick in a Box”, the Lonely Island Boys have unleashed a wild comedy that skewers some of the best comedy standards of the last two decades.
In “Hot Rod”, Andy Samberg stars as Rod Kimble, self proclaimed stuntman who believes he is the offspring of a stunt coordinator. Rod never misses a chance to try a new death defying stunt with the help of his stunt crew. There is just one problem, Rod is probably the worst stuntman ever to grace the planet.
Armed with his trusty moped, Rod attempts to jump swimming pools, vans, and even body boards all with failed and side-splitting results.
Rod also is struggling to win the respect of his stepfather Frank, (Ian McShane), and comes to believe he can only do this by winning one of their numerous fight sessions. As is expected, Rod is even worse at fighting as he is at stunts. This is time leads to a real dilema for Rod, when Frank becomes ill and needs an operation which the family is unable to afford.
Rod decides that he must raise the money to save Frank, so he can kick his butt and gain his respect. Towards this end, Rod rent himself out as a stuntman for hire, and some very funny moments ensue as each outing is even more inept than the one that preceded it.
As if Rod did not have enough trouble in his life, he admires the newest member of his stunt team Denise (Isla Fisher), but runs afoul of her jerky boyfriend Jonathan (Will Arnett), which leads to even more mayhem as the film unfolds in an enjoyable but predictable love triangle. While the plot is not likely to set any new standards for originality, the film shines when it is sending up the numerous films from the 80’s such as “Footloose”, and “Rad” with their often over the top sendups.
While there are stretches of the film that seem to be going nowhere, the film cleverly will turn on a dime and go off in new tangents often with hysterical results which is the strength of the film. Many times I found myself watching the film thinking segments were really out there or dumb, only to erupt in laughter when the scenes played out to their conclusions.
The biggest weakness of the film is that like many other films that star Saturday Night Live cast members, some of the jokes hit and some miss, especially when sketch length bits are carried out over 90 minutes.
While the film was designed to pay homage to past films, it works suprisingly well as not only a pop culture satire, but as a physical comedy. With fine supporting work by Sissy Spacek and Jorma Taccone, “Hot Rod” rises above its stupid comedy origins and creates a fresh, if silly offering that will leave you laughing.
In “Hot Rod”, Andy Samberg stars as Rod Kimble, self proclaimed stuntman who believes he is the offspring of a stunt coordinator. Rod never misses a chance to try a new death defying stunt with the help of his stunt crew. There is just one problem, Rod is probably the worst stuntman ever to grace the planet.
Armed with his trusty moped, Rod attempts to jump swimming pools, vans, and even body boards all with failed and side-splitting results.
Rod also is struggling to win the respect of his stepfather Frank, (Ian McShane), and comes to believe he can only do this by winning one of their numerous fight sessions. As is expected, Rod is even worse at fighting as he is at stunts. This is time leads to a real dilema for Rod, when Frank becomes ill and needs an operation which the family is unable to afford.
Rod decides that he must raise the money to save Frank, so he can kick his butt and gain his respect. Towards this end, Rod rent himself out as a stuntman for hire, and some very funny moments ensue as each outing is even more inept than the one that preceded it.
As if Rod did not have enough trouble in his life, he admires the newest member of his stunt team Denise (Isla Fisher), but runs afoul of her jerky boyfriend Jonathan (Will Arnett), which leads to even more mayhem as the film unfolds in an enjoyable but predictable love triangle. While the plot is not likely to set any new standards for originality, the film shines when it is sending up the numerous films from the 80’s such as “Footloose”, and “Rad” with their often over the top sendups.
While there are stretches of the film that seem to be going nowhere, the film cleverly will turn on a dime and go off in new tangents often with hysterical results which is the strength of the film. Many times I found myself watching the film thinking segments were really out there or dumb, only to erupt in laughter when the scenes played out to their conclusions.
The biggest weakness of the film is that like many other films that star Saturday Night Live cast members, some of the jokes hit and some miss, especially when sketch length bits are carried out over 90 minutes.
While the film was designed to pay homage to past films, it works suprisingly well as not only a pop culture satire, but as a physical comedy. With fine supporting work by Sissy Spacek and Jorma Taccone, “Hot Rod” rises above its stupid comedy origins and creates a fresh, if silly offering that will leave you laughing.