Search
Search results
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Happy Girl Lucky (The Valentines, #1) in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2685992062">Happy Girl Lucky</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/book-review-title.png?w=636"/>;
<b> I am hosing a GIVEAWAY on my instagram page, ending on 22nd February 2019. Enter for a chance to win 5 signed copies with 5 pop sockets! </b>
Happy Girl Lucky is the first book from The Valentines Series. This is a story about a famous family, The Valentines, who have been Hollywood stars for ages. Hope is one of the daughters of the famous couple, but she grows up without all that paparazzi attention and hype. It is a family rule not to involve their children into the famous world until they are sixteen. Hope can’t wait to turn sixteen and start living this amazing life.
Hope spends her teenage years as a normal girl – she steals clothes from her sisters and makes movie scenarios in her head. She reads her horoscope every day and knows what the magazines say is true. She is naive and funny and so unique. And when one day, her horoscope says she is on her way to finally meet her true love, she has to make everything possible to make this come true.
And when she meets this boy, we follow Hope’s adventures from touring London, to travelling to the US, to making decisions she never thought she could make. I loved how we are with Hope every minute of her journey and we watch her slowly grow and make us giggle.
Even though Hope gives the life of this story, and makes us all want to be friends with her, all of the other characters have their own little unique spark, which I loved so much.
A wonderfully written story, but also a very meaningful one. Holly Smale managed to perfectly capture some of the issues that some teenage girls are facing today. Living their own reality while their family lives a completely different world is not so uncommon, and girls need to know this. Sometimes, we wake in a reality we don’t know and think we are the ones to blame, but there is nothing wrong with you. All you ladies out there, you need to hear this. There is nothing wrong with you. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. You are unique, and you should believe in what you are, who you are, and what makes you truly happy. And through Hope’s story, we can understand this so well, and I am forever grateful!
A fun and entertaining story, meant to capture all the teenage hearts out there. This is definitely a must-read for every girl out there, to find her true self and be happy for what she truly is.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2685992062">Happy Girl Lucky</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/book-review-title.png?w=636"/>;
<b> I am hosing a GIVEAWAY on my instagram page, ending on 22nd February 2019. Enter for a chance to win 5 signed copies with 5 pop sockets! </b>
Happy Girl Lucky is the first book from The Valentines Series. This is a story about a famous family, The Valentines, who have been Hollywood stars for ages. Hope is one of the daughters of the famous couple, but she grows up without all that paparazzi attention and hype. It is a family rule not to involve their children into the famous world until they are sixteen. Hope can’t wait to turn sixteen and start living this amazing life.
Hope spends her teenage years as a normal girl – she steals clothes from her sisters and makes movie scenarios in her head. She reads her horoscope every day and knows what the magazines say is true. She is naive and funny and so unique. And when one day, her horoscope says she is on her way to finally meet her true love, she has to make everything possible to make this come true.
And when she meets this boy, we follow Hope’s adventures from touring London, to travelling to the US, to making decisions she never thought she could make. I loved how we are with Hope every minute of her journey and we watch her slowly grow and make us giggle.
Even though Hope gives the life of this story, and makes us all want to be friends with her, all of the other characters have their own little unique spark, which I loved so much.
A wonderfully written story, but also a very meaningful one. Holly Smale managed to perfectly capture some of the issues that some teenage girls are facing today. Living their own reality while their family lives a completely different world is not so uncommon, and girls need to know this. Sometimes, we wake in a reality we don’t know and think we are the ones to blame, but there is nothing wrong with you. All you ladies out there, you need to hear this. There is nothing wrong with you. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. You are unique, and you should believe in what you are, who you are, and what makes you truly happy. And through Hope’s story, we can understand this so well, and I am forever grateful!
A fun and entertaining story, meant to capture all the teenage hearts out there. This is definitely a must-read for every girl out there, to find her true self and be happy for what she truly is.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from the ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage"
Full of life, joy, sorrow, and hilarity; Ryan Coogler's Black Panther just has a vibrancy you rarely find in the superhero scene, let alone blockbusters. Enriched with a deep, abiding love for African culture and Afrofuturism; the movie just feels purposeful. Important. Meaningful. Context matters here, as Black Panther will become one of very few films populated by African Americans not dealing with slavery or black history to thrive financially. And that cast is phenomenal. Boseman's soft-spoken panther-of-few-words is the rare MCUer to opt for a moment of silence rather than a snarky comment. Michael B Jordan brings an unmistakable swagger to the perpetually weak slate of Marvel villains, conveying a crushingly sad and challenging story that could just as easily be regarded as the true hero of the film. Letitia Wright as the genius tech maestro was a blast, a character who could give Tony Stark a run for his money both technologically and charismatically. And these are just three of Coogler's creations; drawn from a slate of inspired, unique and wonderfully represented roles for black actors...many of whom will deservingly use this as a career springboard of sorts.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Feb 29, 2020
Cynthia Erivo - mesmerising (2 more)
Great ensemble cast.
Truly uplifting story
A Crime has been committed
I'm not talking here about the criminal act of Edward Brodess (Mike Marunde) at the start of the film, tearing up perfectly legal documents that prove that slave 'Minty' (Cynthia Erivo) should be released from servitude. No. I'm talking about the 2020 Academy Awards selection.
This was just about the one and only mainstream film that I didn't get to see before this year's awards, and on catching up with it now I feel positively cross with the Academy. Were they looking for an excuse NOT to pour praise on a black-heavy film? Surely not! And yet here we have a standout performance from Cynthia Erivo, that should have been (imho) a more prominent challenger to Renée Zellweger; together with a superb supporting actor performance by Leslie Odom Jr. as her underground railway "Fat Controller" in Philadelphia.
And don't get me started on how or why Erivo didn't get the Oscar for best song with "Stand Up"! (And as both Erivo and Elton John are British, I'm not being partisan here). But did you HEAR and compare those two songs on the night?
The story is based (many would say 'very loosely based') on the amazing life story of Harriet Tubman, who in the run-up to the American Civil War made it her mission to free slaves. Illegally trapped herself on the Brodess farm in Maryland, 'Minty' plans to flee north leaving behind her husband John Tubman (Zackary Momoh), her father (an excellent Clarke Peters), her mother (Vanessa Bell Calloway) and four of her six siblings. It's a perilous pursuit, since being caught by the posse and their hunting dogs will mean severe beatings if not worse.
Fortunately, Minty has an ally.... God. For since a skull fracture, handed out by Gideon Brodess (Joe Alwyn, on great form), at the age of 13, Minty has had seizures where God has shown her flashes of future events.
"Be Free or Die" are the options. Which way will the dice fall for Minty, now reborn as Harriet, as she embarks on ever more perilous missions?
I just loved this movie. I thought Cynthia Erivo was mesmerising as the woman of great substance (you might say, 'True Brit'). There's not been a single Erivo film yet shown that I haven't been impressed with, with "Bad Times at the El Royale" being a particular favourite.
And what a fabulous ensemble cast! Aside from the folks mentioned above, other key performances come from Vondie Curtis-Hall as the Reverend Green (no, not "in the conservatory, with the lead piping") who delivers some fabulous gospel singing, Janelle Monáe (of "Hidden Figures" fame) as the kindly (but fictional) Marie Buchanon who is a friend in need, and Henry Hunter Hall who we first meet as the tricksy bounty hunter Walter.
Also praiseworthy is the score by Terence Blanchard, which seems to completely fit the mood of the movie, and the slightly blue-washed landscape cinematography of John Toll.
Kasi Lemmons - a lady whose previous work I'm not familiar with - directs with style, and (although I appreciate that the Best Director Oscar category only has five names in it) she must have been disappointed not to have been nominated for this. Lemmons also contributed to the story/script from Gregory Allen Howard ("Remember the Titans").
Why the hate on IMDB for this? The user reviews seem to be full of hateful 1* reviews, complaining of perverting the historical record. I can only conclude that this cohort is composed of a) black people genuinely upset about the portrayal of Tubman (which I can respect) and b) racists who are deadly opposed to the message the film portrays and looking for an excuse to bring it down.
Ignore them! If you change the name of the lead character to a fictional one and ignore the "based on a true story" angle, this is a genuinely uplifting and inspiring film. I was sat on a crowded plane, but I genuinely teared up at the finale (and particularly the very final shot) of this movie. It really spoke to me.
Recommended..... dig it out on a streaming service near you and make your own mind up.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/29/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-harriet-2019/. Thanks).
This was just about the one and only mainstream film that I didn't get to see before this year's awards, and on catching up with it now I feel positively cross with the Academy. Were they looking for an excuse NOT to pour praise on a black-heavy film? Surely not! And yet here we have a standout performance from Cynthia Erivo, that should have been (imho) a more prominent challenger to Renée Zellweger; together with a superb supporting actor performance by Leslie Odom Jr. as her underground railway "Fat Controller" in Philadelphia.
And don't get me started on how or why Erivo didn't get the Oscar for best song with "Stand Up"! (And as both Erivo and Elton John are British, I'm not being partisan here). But did you HEAR and compare those two songs on the night?
The story is based (many would say 'very loosely based') on the amazing life story of Harriet Tubman, who in the run-up to the American Civil War made it her mission to free slaves. Illegally trapped herself on the Brodess farm in Maryland, 'Minty' plans to flee north leaving behind her husband John Tubman (Zackary Momoh), her father (an excellent Clarke Peters), her mother (Vanessa Bell Calloway) and four of her six siblings. It's a perilous pursuit, since being caught by the posse and their hunting dogs will mean severe beatings if not worse.
Fortunately, Minty has an ally.... God. For since a skull fracture, handed out by Gideon Brodess (Joe Alwyn, on great form), at the age of 13, Minty has had seizures where God has shown her flashes of future events.
"Be Free or Die" are the options. Which way will the dice fall for Minty, now reborn as Harriet, as she embarks on ever more perilous missions?
I just loved this movie. I thought Cynthia Erivo was mesmerising as the woman of great substance (you might say, 'True Brit'). There's not been a single Erivo film yet shown that I haven't been impressed with, with "Bad Times at the El Royale" being a particular favourite.
And what a fabulous ensemble cast! Aside from the folks mentioned above, other key performances come from Vondie Curtis-Hall as the Reverend Green (no, not "in the conservatory, with the lead piping") who delivers some fabulous gospel singing, Janelle Monáe (of "Hidden Figures" fame) as the kindly (but fictional) Marie Buchanon who is a friend in need, and Henry Hunter Hall who we first meet as the tricksy bounty hunter Walter.
Also praiseworthy is the score by Terence Blanchard, which seems to completely fit the mood of the movie, and the slightly blue-washed landscape cinematography of John Toll.
Kasi Lemmons - a lady whose previous work I'm not familiar with - directs with style, and (although I appreciate that the Best Director Oscar category only has five names in it) she must have been disappointed not to have been nominated for this. Lemmons also contributed to the story/script from Gregory Allen Howard ("Remember the Titans").
Why the hate on IMDB for this? The user reviews seem to be full of hateful 1* reviews, complaining of perverting the historical record. I can only conclude that this cohort is composed of a) black people genuinely upset about the portrayal of Tubman (which I can respect) and b) racists who are deadly opposed to the message the film portrays and looking for an excuse to bring it down.
Ignore them! If you change the name of the lead character to a fictional one and ignore the "based on a true story" angle, this is a genuinely uplifting and inspiring film. I was sat on a crowded plane, but I genuinely teared up at the finale (and particularly the very final shot) of this movie. It really spoke to me.
Recommended..... dig it out on a streaming service near you and make your own mind up.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/29/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-harriet-2019/. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Vizzywig 2017 - Video Editor 4K Multicamera Studio
Photo & Video and Entertainment
7.0
Rate It
App
Winner… MacWorld “Best of Show” Award! Patented... U.S. Patent No. 9,117,483 HD, 4K & 5K for...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ticket to paradise (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2022
Charismatic Leads Saves This Underwritten Film
Have you watched one of the two ABBA Musical MAMA MIA films (MAMA MIA or MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN) and thought to yourself, “I want more of this, but with no music”.
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Evil Dead (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
One of the greatest horror movies of all time would have to be “The Evil Dead” which had been spawned by Sam Raimi and his original short film “Within the Woods”. “Within the Woods” was filmed with the intent of gaining investors to collaborate on a full length film starring the then unknown God of “B” horror movies Bruce Campbell. “The Evil Dead” and its predecessor “Within the Woods” was meant to be serious and horrifying, though that proved to be hard with a smaller budget that Raimi and Campbell had originally hoped for. Little did they know that Evil Dead would become one of the largest trilogies in cult film histories.
Based on Raimi’s original 1981 script, five young adult friends set out on a short vacation in a remote cabin in the woods. Whilst reading from a book that was obviously supposed to stay hidden, one of them ends up summoning dormant demons that end up causing havoc among the group. Killing them off one by one. Though the aura of the film is somewhat similar to the original, we all know that with remakes there are always some differences. In the original the five friends go to a cabin for a care free fun filled weekend the remake centers around one friend trying to kick her drug habits “cold turkey” with the help of her three friends and older brother.
The cinematography of the film is one hundred times better (remember in the original; Bruce running from the “deadite” and you could see the lights in the rafters of the studio “that does not happen in this film”). The remake pays homage to the original in certain respects and can be spotted throughout the film if you are a true “Evil Dead” fanatic. Unlike the original movie that had been filmed in Tennessee the remake was filmed in its entirety in New Zealand. The recreation of the cabin is almost uncanny with a couple of differences here and there. As expected the special FX are much better with a bigger budget and the advancement of technology. Like the original the actors are not well known and only have done a couple other projects. The cast was well selected and the acting was much better.
If you are a true fan of the original film you may like or dislike it. I myself found it to be entertaining however it doesn’t come close to the original film. If you’ve never seen the original you may like this movie based on its own merits. I must add if you’ve never seen the original film shame on you. To all Evil dead and/or Bruce Campbell fans I can not disclose to you if Bruce makes a cameo but I will say this stay till the end of the credits and you may feel pretty groovy.
Based on Raimi’s original 1981 script, five young adult friends set out on a short vacation in a remote cabin in the woods. Whilst reading from a book that was obviously supposed to stay hidden, one of them ends up summoning dormant demons that end up causing havoc among the group. Killing them off one by one. Though the aura of the film is somewhat similar to the original, we all know that with remakes there are always some differences. In the original the five friends go to a cabin for a care free fun filled weekend the remake centers around one friend trying to kick her drug habits “cold turkey” with the help of her three friends and older brother.
The cinematography of the film is one hundred times better (remember in the original; Bruce running from the “deadite” and you could see the lights in the rafters of the studio “that does not happen in this film”). The remake pays homage to the original in certain respects and can be spotted throughout the film if you are a true “Evil Dead” fanatic. Unlike the original movie that had been filmed in Tennessee the remake was filmed in its entirety in New Zealand. The recreation of the cabin is almost uncanny with a couple of differences here and there. As expected the special FX are much better with a bigger budget and the advancement of technology. Like the original the actors are not well known and only have done a couple other projects. The cast was well selected and the acting was much better.
If you are a true fan of the original film you may like or dislike it. I myself found it to be entertaining however it doesn’t come close to the original film. If you’ve never seen the original you may like this movie based on its own merits. I must add if you’ve never seen the original film shame on you. To all Evil dead and/or Bruce Campbell fans I can not disclose to you if Bruce makes a cameo but I will say this stay till the end of the credits and you may feel pretty groovy.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Rodriguez is not a good director. He isn’t an especially good writer or producer either. This is the guy responsible for four Spy Kids films, that start below average and downgrade exponentially into excruciatingly awful. What he is pretty good at is ideas, and seeing the potential of something visually arresting and exciting. That is what led to the success of Sin City, arguably his best effort to date, because he saw how the comic book creations of Frank Miller could become live action and he made it happen.
Alita: Battle Angel is a similar deal. This time Yukito Kishiro’s early 90s manga creation is the inspiration. With James Cameron as producer, and the considerable talents of Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly and Mahershala Ali onboard, it would have been pretty hard for even Rodriguez to mess this up entirely. Although at times he does seem to try, mostly by doing too much and making certain sections too busy and too confusingly cross-genre, like he is frantically trying to colour within the lines whilst using every felt-tip in the pack. A habit that means every now and again something great happens, but you may have missed it in all the background noise.
Compare this film, that just falls short of qualifying for my Bad Movie Triple Bill list, to Spielberg’s superior yet similarly busy Ready Player One. Both involve high concept future realities that are very tech and AI driven. Both make extensive use of CGI and vivid colour palettes. Both are frenetic and demand an audience pays attention in order to fully appreciate the storyline. The difference is that one zig-zags back and forth in tone and momentum, and one is razor sharp in moving us from one idea to the next on a perfect learning curve towards a satisfying climax and conclusion. Guess which one is which? This is why Spielberg is Spielberg and Rodriguez is… a hack.
That said, Alita as a character and concept is charming, and you do therefore find yourself at least wanting to discover her story. The action scenes are also quite electric, and the visuals are often breath-taking. But the whole is less than the sum of the parts here, and we are left with something that can only really exist in the same box as dozens of admirable sci-fi B-movies aimed at teenagers, such as The Maze Runner, Mortal Engines and The City of Ember. It also continues to prove the point alongside Ghost in the Shell and Speed Racer that Anime / Manga into live action is a very tricky business.
There is definitely an audience out there for this movie, and I dare say at some point I will be tempted to give it another watch. What is definitely worth watching however, is how James Cameron uses this as a stepping stone to perfecting virtual humans on the big screen. I am sure everyone involved learned a lot in that respect, so all is far from lost.
Alita: Battle Angel is a similar deal. This time Yukito Kishiro’s early 90s manga creation is the inspiration. With James Cameron as producer, and the considerable talents of Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly and Mahershala Ali onboard, it would have been pretty hard for even Rodriguez to mess this up entirely. Although at times he does seem to try, mostly by doing too much and making certain sections too busy and too confusingly cross-genre, like he is frantically trying to colour within the lines whilst using every felt-tip in the pack. A habit that means every now and again something great happens, but you may have missed it in all the background noise.
Compare this film, that just falls short of qualifying for my Bad Movie Triple Bill list, to Spielberg’s superior yet similarly busy Ready Player One. Both involve high concept future realities that are very tech and AI driven. Both make extensive use of CGI and vivid colour palettes. Both are frenetic and demand an audience pays attention in order to fully appreciate the storyline. The difference is that one zig-zags back and forth in tone and momentum, and one is razor sharp in moving us from one idea to the next on a perfect learning curve towards a satisfying climax and conclusion. Guess which one is which? This is why Spielberg is Spielberg and Rodriguez is… a hack.
That said, Alita as a character and concept is charming, and you do therefore find yourself at least wanting to discover her story. The action scenes are also quite electric, and the visuals are often breath-taking. But the whole is less than the sum of the parts here, and we are left with something that can only really exist in the same box as dozens of admirable sci-fi B-movies aimed at teenagers, such as The Maze Runner, Mortal Engines and The City of Ember. It also continues to prove the point alongside Ghost in the Shell and Speed Racer that Anime / Manga into live action is a very tricky business.
There is definitely an audience out there for this movie, and I dare say at some point I will be tempted to give it another watch. What is definitely worth watching however, is how James Cameron uses this as a stepping stone to perfecting virtual humans on the big screen. I am sure everyone involved learned a lot in that respect, so all is far from lost.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 47 Meters Down (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Down Down, Deeper and Down.
It’s summer again; it’s a shark movie. Lisa and Kate are two sisters on holiday in Mexico with one grieving a lost relationship and the other looking for fun. Against their better judgement they go shark cage diving 5 metres below a vessel that looks like it should have been in the salvage yard 20 years ago. After a mechanical failure the cage plummets down to the sea bed….. (Go on, how deep? Have a guess. Go on, go on, go on …)
With sharks circling and air running low, will the girls survive their ordeal?
Last year, one of the surprise movies of the year for me was “The Shallows“, which I really enjoyed. A tense, well made yarn held together by a solid performance by Blake Lively and with a genuine escalation of tension (albeit let down by a poor ending).
“47 Metres Down” differs from that film in three major respects: B-movie acting, from Mandy Moore and Claire Holt (with Holt being significantly better than Moore); a screenplay by Johannes Roberts and Ernest Riera that is both ponderous and unbelievable; and dialogue that is at times truly execrable.
The film really takes its time to get to the ‘sharp end’ (as it were). Once there, the actions of the girls are so clinically stupid that they are deserving of Darwin Award nominations. Fortunately, the IQs of the sharks (well realised as CGI by Outpost VFX) are only marginally greater: the sharks will appear and then go away for ten minutes at a time, just so that the implausible plot can progress unmolested.
These films always need an escalator for the tension: in “The Shallows” it was the rising tide; in this film it is the air supply. This element works well and adds an additional element of claustrophobia to the film that is already at 11 on the scale (you surely don’t need me to tell you that claustrophobics need to avoid this film!).
Much of the dialogue is expository regarding what is going on in the darkness and is so repetitive (“We ARE going to get out of here Kate!”) that it would make a good drinking game. The worst dialogue award though goes to Matthew Modine (“Memphis Belle”) who’s repeated medical descriptions of “the bends” becomes mildly comical – I literally got a fit of the giggles at one point.
I’m not going to completely savage the film though, since there IS a nice twist to the ending, albeit one that’s heavily signposted. And instead of reaching constantly for the classic “Ben’s head in the boat” jump scare, the film occasionally teases the audience with set-ups that ultimately just feature murky water and nothing more.
My recommendation: if you’ve not yet seen “The Shallows”, check that out on DVD and give this one a miss.
With sharks circling and air running low, will the girls survive their ordeal?
Last year, one of the surprise movies of the year for me was “The Shallows“, which I really enjoyed. A tense, well made yarn held together by a solid performance by Blake Lively and with a genuine escalation of tension (albeit let down by a poor ending).
“47 Metres Down” differs from that film in three major respects: B-movie acting, from Mandy Moore and Claire Holt (with Holt being significantly better than Moore); a screenplay by Johannes Roberts and Ernest Riera that is both ponderous and unbelievable; and dialogue that is at times truly execrable.
The film really takes its time to get to the ‘sharp end’ (as it were). Once there, the actions of the girls are so clinically stupid that they are deserving of Darwin Award nominations. Fortunately, the IQs of the sharks (well realised as CGI by Outpost VFX) are only marginally greater: the sharks will appear and then go away for ten minutes at a time, just so that the implausible plot can progress unmolested.
These films always need an escalator for the tension: in “The Shallows” it was the rising tide; in this film it is the air supply. This element works well and adds an additional element of claustrophobia to the film that is already at 11 on the scale (you surely don’t need me to tell you that claustrophobics need to avoid this film!).
Much of the dialogue is expository regarding what is going on in the darkness and is so repetitive (“We ARE going to get out of here Kate!”) that it would make a good drinking game. The worst dialogue award though goes to Matthew Modine (“Memphis Belle”) who’s repeated medical descriptions of “the bends” becomes mildly comical – I literally got a fit of the giggles at one point.
I’m not going to completely savage the film though, since there IS a nice twist to the ending, albeit one that’s heavily signposted. And instead of reaching constantly for the classic “Ben’s head in the boat” jump scare, the film occasionally teases the audience with set-ups that ultimately just feature murky water and nothing more.
My recommendation: if you’ve not yet seen “The Shallows”, check that out on DVD and give this one a miss.