Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avatar: The Way of Water (2021) in Movies
Jan 2, 2023
Strong Visuals - Weak Everything Else
See AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER on the biggest 3D Screen, with the best Sound System possible. It is a technical marvel…way ahead of anything that has, thus far, been seen on a movie screen.
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022) in Movies
Nov 18, 2022
Should have been called WAKANDA MOURNS
The passing of Chadwick Boseman from cancer is a unfortunate and sad thing. The makers of the Black Panther series of films for the MCU had a difficult task to accomplish. How do they pay tribute to their lost lead while also leading the series in a new direction? In the end, they ultimately decided to lean INTO (and not away from) his passing - and your emotional involvement in this film will be predicated on how you react to this, for basing an entire SuperHero Movie on grief and longing for a return to the past is not going to make the “feel good movie of the year”.
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
Vikander. She is excellent and plays this two-dimensional character far beyond the script. (3 more)
The supernatural elements
Did I mention Vikander’s superb performance?
Damn, Vikander was spectacular!
The script (3 more)
The tropes
The characters’ lack of dimension
Low hope for a sequel
It’s action. It’s rife with plot holes. It’s got an AMAZING lead.
Note: I was given a copy by SmashBomb to review.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Alice (12 KP) rated The Temptation of Dragons (Penny White #1) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<i>Many thanks to the author Chrys Cymri for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review</i>
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Life Unaware in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Deciding to actually read Cole Gibsen's latest new book was an extremely risky decision for me: I am, by no means, a contemporary reader (why I'm avoiding New Adult a lot), and telling Cole (or any author) that I hated her latest book is not something I would actually like to do...
I find that <i>Life Unaware</i> wasn't so daunting after all. In fact, after looking past the little peeves I have against some people in the world, Gibsen's debut contemporary is actually one of those extremely rare contemporaries that I enjoyed reading (the other one I believe is <a title="The Fault in Our Stars" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-fault-in-our-stars-by-john-green/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Green's <i>The Fault in Our Stars</i></a>).
<i>Life Unaware</i> is actually written not necessarily from the person being bullied, but the bully herself getting a taste of her own medicine. For years Regan Flay has been popular at her school, looked up to and respected by her fellow peers. Little did anyone else aside from her close circle of friends that she spent her time digging up dirt about her classmates, until one day, Regan finds all of her private messages posted on the lockers at school.
For the first few chapters, I just couldn't stand Regan. She seemed stuck up, annoying, spoiled basically just another missing part of the Mean Girls clique (that movie was highly annoying as well) and the only thing I probably liked about Regan was the mere fact that I pitied and felt sorry for her. Underneath all her "rot," Regan was just a normal person with a mother who spent 99% of her time in politics and harping over Regan in her free time.
Basically, Regan just had a lot of extremely high expectations that I could surprisingly relate to in terms of choosing a college and a major. I didn't win on the college part (that battle now includes having to get a 30 or higher on my ACT to go to a university or I'm stuck at community college), but I did win (sort of) in choosing a major... by going the harder route, famously known as double major.
High expectations aside, enter Nolan Letner. Ex-popular, artistic, and bottom of the social ladder a completely opposite spectrum to Regan until her private messages are revealed for the entire school to see. Nolan doesn't really play much of a role in <i>Life Unaware</i>, aside from being Regan's only "support" when her entire life flipped upside down before her eyes.
But despite the fact Nolan doesn't actually play a really huge role, he definitely brings out Regan's true side the side that seems much more natural for Regan rather something forced from her mother over the years. Nolan also helps Regan turn her life back around, helping and encouraging her throughout several parts in the book to become a better person than she was before at the very beginning.
<i>Life Unaware</i> does eventually go for a darker turn before having a happily ever after vibe sorry, no spoilers. While this is completely different from her other books, I do applaud Cole Gibsen for writing a well-written contemporary novel dealing with bullying and the after-effects.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-life-unaware-by-cole-gibsen-arc-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Deciding to actually read Cole Gibsen's latest new book was an extremely risky decision for me: I am, by no means, a contemporary reader (why I'm avoiding New Adult a lot), and telling Cole (or any author) that I hated her latest book is not something I would actually like to do...
I find that <i>Life Unaware</i> wasn't so daunting after all. In fact, after looking past the little peeves I have against some people in the world, Gibsen's debut contemporary is actually one of those extremely rare contemporaries that I enjoyed reading (the other one I believe is <a title="The Fault in Our Stars" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-fault-in-our-stars-by-john-green/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Green's <i>The Fault in Our Stars</i></a>).
<i>Life Unaware</i> is actually written not necessarily from the person being bullied, but the bully herself getting a taste of her own medicine. For years Regan Flay has been popular at her school, looked up to and respected by her fellow peers. Little did anyone else aside from her close circle of friends that she spent her time digging up dirt about her classmates, until one day, Regan finds all of her private messages posted on the lockers at school.
For the first few chapters, I just couldn't stand Regan. She seemed stuck up, annoying, spoiled basically just another missing part of the Mean Girls clique (that movie was highly annoying as well) and the only thing I probably liked about Regan was the mere fact that I pitied and felt sorry for her. Underneath all her "rot," Regan was just a normal person with a mother who spent 99% of her time in politics and harping over Regan in her free time.
Basically, Regan just had a lot of extremely high expectations that I could surprisingly relate to in terms of choosing a college and a major. I didn't win on the college part (that battle now includes having to get a 30 or higher on my ACT to go to a university or I'm stuck at community college), but I did win (sort of) in choosing a major... by going the harder route, famously known as double major.
High expectations aside, enter Nolan Letner. Ex-popular, artistic, and bottom of the social ladder a completely opposite spectrum to Regan until her private messages are revealed for the entire school to see. Nolan doesn't really play much of a role in <i>Life Unaware</i>, aside from being Regan's only "support" when her entire life flipped upside down before her eyes.
But despite the fact Nolan doesn't actually play a really huge role, he definitely brings out Regan's true side the side that seems much more natural for Regan rather something forced from her mother over the years. Nolan also helps Regan turn her life back around, helping and encouraging her throughout several parts in the book to become a better person than she was before at the very beginning.
<i>Life Unaware</i> does eventually go for a darker turn before having a happily ever after vibe sorry, no spoilers. While this is completely different from her other books, I do applaud Cole Gibsen for writing a well-written contemporary novel dealing with bullying and the after-effects.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-life-unaware-by-cole-gibsen-arc-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
iSymphonic Orchestra
Music and Education
App
The ultimate orchestra sound app for sophisticated musicians by award-winning sound designer Kurt...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“When the man comes around”
At last – a superhero movie with real heart… (and not just the chunks over the knuckle blades!). Logan is a bit of a revelation. I was reluctant to go and see it, since a) I’m a lukewarm X-Men fan at best and b) I hadn’t seen either of the previous two Wolverine spin-off films. (Seeing the other Wolverine films, by the way, is not a pre-requisite for enjoying this one). After a long day at work, my choice was “Logan” or “Kong: Skull Island”. I voted for this one, and I’m so glad I did.
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Mar 5, 2018
Epic
There is so much to love about Black Panther that it's taken me awhile to figure out where to begin. I guess I'll start with the message. A message that leaves us with two options: We can all spend the rest of our lives hating each other or we can choose to work together. That's not just a message for black people, which the cast predominately represents, but a message for the human race.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Battle: Los Angeles (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
War movies depicting a group of soldiers against overwhelming odds are nothing new. For generations, moviegoers have been treated to cinematic recreations as well as new scenarios of fighting units in combat. Usually these films follow a typical formula that includes the tough and gritty commanding officer, the naïve new soldier, the one with a woman and children waiting at home, and one who has difficulties with combat. In the new movie Battle: Los Angeles a new twist is given to the formulaic troops-in-combat picture which produces a mixed bag of results.
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.