Search
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated We Bought a Zoo (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
From the director of Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe has brought us a great new film starring Mat Damon, Scarlett Johansson, Thomas Hadden Church and up and coming star Elle Fanning. Packed with amazing talent; “We Bought a Zoo” is a heartwarming true story of a man who wants to start over and in doing so, he provides a new life for his young family and his new friends.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.
Albino Farm (2009)
Movie
The film opens in the small town of Shiloh, where two boys on bicycles ride through the woods up to...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated This Secret We're Keeping in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules?</i> This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
<i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules?</i> This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
<i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019 (Updated Jan 24, 2019)
A very funny, heartwarming drama about adoption
On paper, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Instant Family is going to be just like so many other movies you've seen over the years. A couple without children of their own decides to adopt and end up with three troubled siblings of varying ages. And when you read that it's from director/co-writer Sean Anders, along with Mark Wahlberg, who worked together on both of the 'Daddy's Home' movies, you'll think you've got a pretty good idea of the tone and direction this movie is going to follow. Luckily though, while there are some genuinely very funny moments in this movie, it also manages to successfully blend it with some serious human drama and emotion and a fantastic set of characters.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Miles Ahead (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve ever found yourself in a coffee shop, bookstore, or perhaps even a jazz club in the 21st century you can’t NOT have heard either the name ‘Miles Davis’, his music, or perhaps both. If you’ve been living under a rock your whole life and by some miracle you have a smartphone, computer, or a radio find a jazz station and it’s almost a sure thing you’ll here his music within minutes. The man is no myth although the man and his music are so legendary there is almost a mythical presence to him. He is one of the greats. No question. No argument.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
The Rose and the Ring
Book
The plot opens on the royal family of Paflagonia eating breakfast together: King Valoroso, his wife,...
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Clock Dance in Books
Aug 11, 2018
Clock Dance was the second pick for Barnes & Noble's nation-wide Book Club. (The first was Meg Wolitzer's The Female Persuasion, back in May.) Like the first one, it was contemporary fiction, which I'm pretty meh about. When I learned it was set mostly in Baltimore, and written by a local author, I became more interested. I'm originally from Oregon, but Baltimore has become my home, and I enjoy reading about it. We had a slightly larger group than last time, but I was the only returning attendee besides the store employee, Sam, who led the discussion.
Sam opened the discussion with the same question that she started the last one with - "Did you like the main character?" It's an interesting question because most people ask "Did you like the book?" which can have a different answer. I don't usually read books in which I don't like the main character, but that's usually because I choose my books. I'm not choosing my Book Club books, so it's a good question. Unlike last time, I did like Willa. I disagreed with her judgment when it came to husbands, but I still sympathized with her. I mentioned that I didn't like that she just floated through most of her life without any real ambition, but to be honest, I've done that too. I'm not a very ambitious person - or my ambitions are quite low. I think that, perhaps, is the difference. I find a lot of fulfillment in being, effectively, my husband's personal assistant. It's fun. Willa did not seem to find it fulfilling, she just - didn't want to rock the boat.
I like how we saw each of Willa's "defining moments" - the book opens on her as a child, her volatile mother having stormed out of the house during an argument. Her mother really does a number on her as a child. I think it's why she hates to rock the boat so much. From here, we fast forward to college, and Willa's boyfriend proposing to her after gaslighting her about an event that happened on the plane. Willa's mother disapproves. Vehemently. I think that's part of why Willa accepts. Our next view of Willa's life is the accident that takes her husband's life, and its aftermath.
Then we finally start into the real meat of the book, twenty years after the death of her first husband. Her sons have grown and moved away, she has remarried, and both of her parents have passed. Her husband is a little distant, and she seems rather untethered. Then she gets the strangest phone call. It turns out her eldest son lived with a woman (Denise) and her daughter for a little while in Baltimore; he has since moved on, but "Sean's mother" is still a phone number on Denise's emergency contact list. So when Denise is shot in the leg and put in the hospital, a neighbor lady sees it, assumes Willa is the grandmother of the child, and calls her to come take care of her. It's a little convoluted, and Willa can't even adequately explain to her husband why she's decided to fly to Baltimore to take care of a child she has no relation to, but she does so anyway.
This is where we get to Baltimore, and, in Anne Tyler's own words, "when her story changes to Technicolor."
I actually live just outside Baltimore myself, but one of my best friends lives in Charles Village, and I could SO EASILY envision Willa's neighborhood as a street of rowhomes. (Turns out it's probably based on a neighborhood in Hamilton, according to the Baltimore Sun.) I was even mapping locations in Willa's house to my friend's rowhome! Anne Tyler really captures the spirit of Baltimore, and now I want to read more of her books, even if they are contemporary fiction!
Overall I enjoyed Clock Dance; Anne Tyler is very good at subtle character growth, which is quite realistic. People don't often change all at once. Sometimes it takes a lifetime of being told what to do before finally waking up to what you WANT to do.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Sam opened the discussion with the same question that she started the last one with - "Did you like the main character?" It's an interesting question because most people ask "Did you like the book?" which can have a different answer. I don't usually read books in which I don't like the main character, but that's usually because I choose my books. I'm not choosing my Book Club books, so it's a good question. Unlike last time, I did like Willa. I disagreed with her judgment when it came to husbands, but I still sympathized with her. I mentioned that I didn't like that she just floated through most of her life without any real ambition, but to be honest, I've done that too. I'm not a very ambitious person - or my ambitions are quite low. I think that, perhaps, is the difference. I find a lot of fulfillment in being, effectively, my husband's personal assistant. It's fun. Willa did not seem to find it fulfilling, she just - didn't want to rock the boat.
I like how we saw each of Willa's "defining moments" - the book opens on her as a child, her volatile mother having stormed out of the house during an argument. Her mother really does a number on her as a child. I think it's why she hates to rock the boat so much. From here, we fast forward to college, and Willa's boyfriend proposing to her after gaslighting her about an event that happened on the plane. Willa's mother disapproves. Vehemently. I think that's part of why Willa accepts. Our next view of Willa's life is the accident that takes her husband's life, and its aftermath.
Then we finally start into the real meat of the book, twenty years after the death of her first husband. Her sons have grown and moved away, she has remarried, and both of her parents have passed. Her husband is a little distant, and she seems rather untethered. Then she gets the strangest phone call. It turns out her eldest son lived with a woman (Denise) and her daughter for a little while in Baltimore; he has since moved on, but "Sean's mother" is still a phone number on Denise's emergency contact list. So when Denise is shot in the leg and put in the hospital, a neighbor lady sees it, assumes Willa is the grandmother of the child, and calls her to come take care of her. It's a little convoluted, and Willa can't even adequately explain to her husband why she's decided to fly to Baltimore to take care of a child she has no relation to, but she does so anyway.
This is where we get to Baltimore, and, in Anne Tyler's own words, "when her story changes to Technicolor."
I actually live just outside Baltimore myself, but one of my best friends lives in Charles Village, and I could SO EASILY envision Willa's neighborhood as a street of rowhomes. (Turns out it's probably based on a neighborhood in Hamilton, according to the Baltimore Sun.) I was even mapping locations in Willa's house to my friend's rowhome! Anne Tyler really captures the spirit of Baltimore, and now I want to read more of her books, even if they are contemporary fiction!
Overall I enjoyed Clock Dance; Anne Tyler is very good at subtle character growth, which is quite realistic. People don't often change all at once. Sometimes it takes a lifetime of being told what to do before finally waking up to what you WANT to do.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.