Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sweetheart (2021) in Movies
Sep 20, 2021
Great ensemble cast (1 more)
Sensitive and moving writing by Marley Morrison
A Gregory's Girl for the 21st Century
When I was in my late teen's, Bill Forsyth's "Gregory's Girl" perfectly epitomised the angst of the school years' emotions I'd left behind me. And I was very much heterosexual. With "Sweetheart", Marley Morrison in an astonishing feature debut delivers a "Gregory's Girl" for today's much more sexually fluid times.
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My One and Only in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved Kristin Higgins' last release, All I Ever Wanted. I loved that it was a good romance with good characters and no explicit sex scenes. I loved the dogs. I loved the quirks. I loved the family, I loved everything about it. I was psyched to get her new release.
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Deckscape: Crew vs Crew - The Pirate's Island in Tabletop Games
May 20, 2021
Who out there has ever gone to an escape room and not enjoyed themselves? I know nobody (though if that’s you, it’s okay). I have only been to one in my life (eek!) and I absolutely loved it! I have watched videos of celebrities tackling escape rooms and have been riveted. I like the shows you can now find streaming of similar type activities and am always glued to the screen. Heck, I have played the EXIT and Unlock systems of board games and enjoyed them as well. So having the experience I have and having played two other Deckscape games, how did this one fare for me? Much better. Read on.
These one-shot escape room style games are difficult to explain without major spoilers, so I will try to explain what I can as best I can. Please don’t flame me for being vague. I am protecting you.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more info, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the box and take out the cards. Done. Read Card 1.
This one is quite a bit different from previous Deckscape games I have played in several ways. First, this is a head-to-head game where two players (or teams of players) will be taking sides of two pirate captains and attempting to figure out the answers to puzzles offered on cards in the game. Each side will have equal time and opportunity to solve the puzzles, but the first side to claim that they have solved it will be able to flip over the puzzle card to check for accurate answers. If they have succeeded, they earn the booty. If they fail, the other team has a chance to complete the puzzle successfully.
Play continues through the deck of cards with each side engaging in battles of wits until the end of the game draws near. The side with the most booty earned will be the winner and the game can then be passed along to another group of players to enjoy.
Components. This is a box of cards. The cards are all bigger than normal playing cards and feature pretty great art and vivid colors. I totally dig the pirate theme, so I was already destined to enjoy to aesthetic, but I do believe this is the better-looking game of the ones I have tried in its family.
Gameplay is also so different from the other two games in the Deckscape system and that’s a great thing. Having this head-to-head style really suited my situation when I played it: my 10-year-old niece was bored while her twin brother was at baseball practice, so I invited her to play this with me. Long story short, she ended up beating me by one point in the end, so that made her incredibly happy. I also highly enjoyed my playthrough of it, even in defeat.
I wish I could speak more on the specifics why I liked this, but again, as River Song would say, “Spoilers.” Do know that of the three Deckscape games I have played, I believe this is the best of the group. The puzzles are all fantastic, and I feel like I had a good handle on the solutions, but my niece obviously beat me to them more often than I would have liked to have admitted. That said, I can recommend this one to anyone interested in the Deckscape system with one caveat: this is head-to-head instead of the typical cooperative experience in the series. So you have been warned. It’s very good, though, so do check it out. Purple Phoenix Games (with guest score from my niece Keira) gives this one a puzzly 10 / 12, If you are wanting a little different flavor in your bottle of rum, grab a copy of this and enjoy. Just play it with someone your own age, or prepare to BE owned.
These one-shot escape room style games are difficult to explain without major spoilers, so I will try to explain what I can as best I can. Please don’t flame me for being vague. I am protecting you.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more info, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the box and take out the cards. Done. Read Card 1.
This one is quite a bit different from previous Deckscape games I have played in several ways. First, this is a head-to-head game where two players (or teams of players) will be taking sides of two pirate captains and attempting to figure out the answers to puzzles offered on cards in the game. Each side will have equal time and opportunity to solve the puzzles, but the first side to claim that they have solved it will be able to flip over the puzzle card to check for accurate answers. If they have succeeded, they earn the booty. If they fail, the other team has a chance to complete the puzzle successfully.
Play continues through the deck of cards with each side engaging in battles of wits until the end of the game draws near. The side with the most booty earned will be the winner and the game can then be passed along to another group of players to enjoy.
Components. This is a box of cards. The cards are all bigger than normal playing cards and feature pretty great art and vivid colors. I totally dig the pirate theme, so I was already destined to enjoy to aesthetic, but I do believe this is the better-looking game of the ones I have tried in its family.
Gameplay is also so different from the other two games in the Deckscape system and that’s a great thing. Having this head-to-head style really suited my situation when I played it: my 10-year-old niece was bored while her twin brother was at baseball practice, so I invited her to play this with me. Long story short, she ended up beating me by one point in the end, so that made her incredibly happy. I also highly enjoyed my playthrough of it, even in defeat.
I wish I could speak more on the specifics why I liked this, but again, as River Song would say, “Spoilers.” Do know that of the three Deckscape games I have played, I believe this is the best of the group. The puzzles are all fantastic, and I feel like I had a good handle on the solutions, but my niece obviously beat me to them more often than I would have liked to have admitted. That said, I can recommend this one to anyone interested in the Deckscape system with one caveat: this is head-to-head instead of the typical cooperative experience in the series. So you have been warned. It’s very good, though, so do check it out. Purple Phoenix Games (with guest score from my niece Keira) gives this one a puzzly 10 / 12, If you are wanting a little different flavor in your bottle of rum, grab a copy of this and enjoy. Just play it with someone your own age, or prepare to BE owned.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Hadley (567 KP) rated Stranger Things: Runaway Max in Books
Feb 16, 2020
More of Max & Billy's relationship (1 more)
Max's life in California
Brenna Yovanoff wrote this novel after season two of Stranger Things debuted on Netflix. And it reads exactly like season two, but from Max's point-of-view with some flashbacks of her life before Hawkins mixed in to make a pleasurable meal for the eyes.
Max Mayfield is a pre-teen that just moved to Hawkins, Indiana after her mother remarried and added an abusive step-father and step-brother to the family equation. She spends most of her time trying to not want to fit in with the kids at her new school, riding her trusty skateboard behind the building during recess and telling a group of boys who can't stop staring at her to leave her alone. Max's home life has become unbearable to the point that she debates running back to her real father in California. Fortunately, two of those boys that couldn't stop staring try to be friends with her, but when she begins to hang around them, she learns that things are not what they seem in Hawkins, Indiana. Merging with this group of boys, Max's life is forever changed, and probably for the better.
Runaway Max doesn't focus on the supernatural aspect that Stranger Things is known for. Instead, the focus is on a girl's life that gets turned upside down [pun intended] by the introduction of two abusive people that enter it with the intent of either destroying her or making her compliant, the struggle with who she is and who everyone else says she should be, to the desperation for just one real friend. Personally, I believe Yovanoff did an amazing job at telling Stranger Things fans the backstory of our Mad Max. As a result, I have no complaints about this novel whatsoever.
Yovanoff starts readers off with Max riding her skateboard through downtown Hawkins, with Max telling us how she was happy there was an arcade in this small town. Max wipes out on her skateboard, where a woman who will be very familiar to fans, runs out of a store to help her to her feet until the loud sound of engine comes pulling up; enter Billy and his Camaro. All throughout the story, readers get to see more of what was going on inside the Mayfield/Hargrove's household, which viewers of the series were only witness to one of the abuses happening to Billy by his father.
Runaway Max picks up the pace when a familiar scene happens with Max joining Stranger Things regulars: Lucas and Dustin, for Halloween around Hawkins. But with this story, we follow Max home after Will's encounter with a creature from the Upside Down. We learn that Billy never picked Max up, as he was suppose to, and that his father, Neil, is beyond angry when Billy comes home drunk and high:
" When Billy came slamming into the house, the smell came with him, rolling like the clouds of smoke and alcohol wafting out of a dive bar. Like bad weather. He was stumbling a little. His eyes were red-rimmed and heavier than ever, and he still had the leather jacket on, but he wasn't wearing a shirt. The light from the stained-glass lamp on the end table made him look deranged.
Neil breathed in through his nose and heaved himself out of his chair. 'And where the hell have you been?'
'Nowhere,' Billy muttered, and tried to brush past him, but Neil stepped in front of him and stopped him with a hand on his chest.
'What was that?'
Billy ducked his head and mumbled something about a flat tire. I couldn't tell if he was being honest or not - - - probably not - - - but as soon as he said it, it was pretty obvious that I had been lying. Whatever he'd been doing, it definitely hadn't been giving a school friend a ride home.
Neil had stayed ominously quiet, but now he drew himself up and took a step forward so he had Billy trapped against the wall. 'I'm curious to know where you learned to be so disobedient.'
Billy stared back at him. He was standing with his chin down and his jacket open, looking mutinous. He smelled like beer and the dry-skunk smell of Nate's brother, Silas, and all the other eighth-grade boys who got stoned behind the baseball diamond back home. It was the smell of not caring. 'Bite me, Neil. I'm not in the mood.'
For a second, they just stood looking at each other.
Then Neil spoke in a low, dangerous voice. The air was heavy and metallic, like right before a thunderstorm. 'I don't know where you've been or what you've been up to, but you will show me some respect!'
He shouted the last part. His voice sounded much too big in the smallness of the living room, and I winced, even though I was willing myself not to."
After Max quickly heads to her room to count her Halloween candy...
"Out in the living room, Neil was tuning up. For a while, it was just a rumble of voices, softer sometimes, then louder. There was a short, sharp cry and then a flat, meaty sound, like punching the pocket of a baseball glove. "
Runaway Max does a superb job of detailing abuse and the psychology that plays a role in it. Readers, also, get to see more of Billy's abuse towards Max. Focusing on the shift of personality Billy goes through (those who have watched season three of Stranger Things will have more of an understanding behind Billy, I recommend that if you haven't watched that season yet, that you do after reading this book). While all of this is going on, Yovanoff also retells season two, winding it within Max's story effortlessly and concisely:
"Dustin bent over the table, gazing at the creature in his hands like it was the sweetest, most adorable thing. He kept calling it a he, even though it was so weird and shapeless that how could you tell?
When he saw me staring, he asked if I wanted to hold it, and I shook my head, but he turned and tipped it out of his cupped palms and into mine.
It felt cool and squishy, heavier than it looked, and I passed it to Lucas fast. Lucas handed it off to Will, and it made its way around the circle. I was a little relieved to see that I wasn't the only one shrinking back from it. Will was looking at it like it had some kind of disease, and even Mike didn't exactly seem thrilled to touch it. He was the bravest, though, and held it up for a closer look. "
All-in-all, Runaway Max is season two of Stranger Things to-a-tee. But with Max's relationship with Billy being molded more by this novel, it can make even the most die-hard fans look at the two in a different way. There are even small splotches of scenes where Billy seems to want Max as a little sister, one such, when Max catches him in the garage of their California home, working on his car and smoking a cigarette:
" I leaned forward with my knees on my elbows and cupped my chin in my hands. 'At the health assembly in school, they told us that we're not supposed to smoke.'
Billy straightened and closed the hood, wiping his hands with a rag. 'And do you always do everything your teachers tell you?'
That idea was so wrong it was hilarious. My grades were usually okay, but my conduct cards were a mess. I was always in trouble for something- - - talking back, or drawing cartoon hot rods on my desk with a felt pen. I laughed and shook my head.
That seemed to make him happy. He smiled in a slow, lazy way, then pulled the pack of Parliaments out of his shirt pocket. He held it out to me and waited, watching my face until I took one." When readers get to see the small moments between the two, it hurts more to know that Billy is just an abused young man that is reflecting his father's behavior.
Overall, I really enjoyed Max's story, but was it needed? Before season three, I would have said yes, but with what we learned of Billy in season three, I don't think it was completely necessary. I think only die-hard fans of the show will enjoy this book, otherwise watching the series is the majority of the novel.
Max Mayfield is a pre-teen that just moved to Hawkins, Indiana after her mother remarried and added an abusive step-father and step-brother to the family equation. She spends most of her time trying to not want to fit in with the kids at her new school, riding her trusty skateboard behind the building during recess and telling a group of boys who can't stop staring at her to leave her alone. Max's home life has become unbearable to the point that she debates running back to her real father in California. Fortunately, two of those boys that couldn't stop staring try to be friends with her, but when she begins to hang around them, she learns that things are not what they seem in Hawkins, Indiana. Merging with this group of boys, Max's life is forever changed, and probably for the better.
Runaway Max doesn't focus on the supernatural aspect that Stranger Things is known for. Instead, the focus is on a girl's life that gets turned upside down [pun intended] by the introduction of two abusive people that enter it with the intent of either destroying her or making her compliant, the struggle with who she is and who everyone else says she should be, to the desperation for just one real friend. Personally, I believe Yovanoff did an amazing job at telling Stranger Things fans the backstory of our Mad Max. As a result, I have no complaints about this novel whatsoever.
Yovanoff starts readers off with Max riding her skateboard through downtown Hawkins, with Max telling us how she was happy there was an arcade in this small town. Max wipes out on her skateboard, where a woman who will be very familiar to fans, runs out of a store to help her to her feet until the loud sound of engine comes pulling up; enter Billy and his Camaro. All throughout the story, readers get to see more of what was going on inside the Mayfield/Hargrove's household, which viewers of the series were only witness to one of the abuses happening to Billy by his father.
Runaway Max picks up the pace when a familiar scene happens with Max joining Stranger Things regulars: Lucas and Dustin, for Halloween around Hawkins. But with this story, we follow Max home after Will's encounter with a creature from the Upside Down. We learn that Billy never picked Max up, as he was suppose to, and that his father, Neil, is beyond angry when Billy comes home drunk and high:
" When Billy came slamming into the house, the smell came with him, rolling like the clouds of smoke and alcohol wafting out of a dive bar. Like bad weather. He was stumbling a little. His eyes were red-rimmed and heavier than ever, and he still had the leather jacket on, but he wasn't wearing a shirt. The light from the stained-glass lamp on the end table made him look deranged.
Neil breathed in through his nose and heaved himself out of his chair. 'And where the hell have you been?'
'Nowhere,' Billy muttered, and tried to brush past him, but Neil stepped in front of him and stopped him with a hand on his chest.
'What was that?'
Billy ducked his head and mumbled something about a flat tire. I couldn't tell if he was being honest or not - - - probably not - - - but as soon as he said it, it was pretty obvious that I had been lying. Whatever he'd been doing, it definitely hadn't been giving a school friend a ride home.
Neil had stayed ominously quiet, but now he drew himself up and took a step forward so he had Billy trapped against the wall. 'I'm curious to know where you learned to be so disobedient.'
Billy stared back at him. He was standing with his chin down and his jacket open, looking mutinous. He smelled like beer and the dry-skunk smell of Nate's brother, Silas, and all the other eighth-grade boys who got stoned behind the baseball diamond back home. It was the smell of not caring. 'Bite me, Neil. I'm not in the mood.'
For a second, they just stood looking at each other.
Then Neil spoke in a low, dangerous voice. The air was heavy and metallic, like right before a thunderstorm. 'I don't know where you've been or what you've been up to, but you will show me some respect!'
He shouted the last part. His voice sounded much too big in the smallness of the living room, and I winced, even though I was willing myself not to."
After Max quickly heads to her room to count her Halloween candy...
"Out in the living room, Neil was tuning up. For a while, it was just a rumble of voices, softer sometimes, then louder. There was a short, sharp cry and then a flat, meaty sound, like punching the pocket of a baseball glove. "
Runaway Max does a superb job of detailing abuse and the psychology that plays a role in it. Readers, also, get to see more of Billy's abuse towards Max. Focusing on the shift of personality Billy goes through (those who have watched season three of Stranger Things will have more of an understanding behind Billy, I recommend that if you haven't watched that season yet, that you do after reading this book). While all of this is going on, Yovanoff also retells season two, winding it within Max's story effortlessly and concisely:
"Dustin bent over the table, gazing at the creature in his hands like it was the sweetest, most adorable thing. He kept calling it a he, even though it was so weird and shapeless that how could you tell?
When he saw me staring, he asked if I wanted to hold it, and I shook my head, but he turned and tipped it out of his cupped palms and into mine.
It felt cool and squishy, heavier than it looked, and I passed it to Lucas fast. Lucas handed it off to Will, and it made its way around the circle. I was a little relieved to see that I wasn't the only one shrinking back from it. Will was looking at it like it had some kind of disease, and even Mike didn't exactly seem thrilled to touch it. He was the bravest, though, and held it up for a closer look. "
All-in-all, Runaway Max is season two of Stranger Things to-a-tee. But with Max's relationship with Billy being molded more by this novel, it can make even the most die-hard fans look at the two in a different way. There are even small splotches of scenes where Billy seems to want Max as a little sister, one such, when Max catches him in the garage of their California home, working on his car and smoking a cigarette:
" I leaned forward with my knees on my elbows and cupped my chin in my hands. 'At the health assembly in school, they told us that we're not supposed to smoke.'
Billy straightened and closed the hood, wiping his hands with a rag. 'And do you always do everything your teachers tell you?'
That idea was so wrong it was hilarious. My grades were usually okay, but my conduct cards were a mess. I was always in trouble for something- - - talking back, or drawing cartoon hot rods on my desk with a felt pen. I laughed and shook my head.
That seemed to make him happy. He smiled in a slow, lazy way, then pulled the pack of Parliaments out of his shirt pocket. He held it out to me and waited, watching my face until I took one." When readers get to see the small moments between the two, it hurts more to know that Billy is just an abused young man that is reflecting his father's behavior.
Overall, I really enjoyed Max's story, but was it needed? Before season three, I would have said yes, but with what we learned of Billy in season three, I don't think it was completely necessary. I think only die-hard fans of the show will enjoy this book, otherwise watching the series is the majority of the novel.
Louise (64 KP) rated I'll Give You the Sun in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I'll give you the sun follows twins Noah and Jude that are aspiring artists. They are both working on their portfolios to get into a prestigious art school in the local area when a tragedy pulls them apart and they start to live two separate lives.
I loved this book the writing was so poetic and beautiful. The story is written from two perspectives and at different times. Noah's perspective is written when he is 13. 5 years old and before 'said' tragedy struck and Jude's when she is 16 - two years later. At 13 years old the pair were close with sibling rivalries, respecting each others art and dividing the world up.
“I gave up practically the whole world for you,” I tell him, walking through the front door of my own love story. “The sun, stars, ocean, trees, everything, I gave it all up for you.”
At 16 the pair couldn't be further apart, they constantly avoid each other and barely talk. When lies start to unravel and they discover the truth, can they become two once more.
Noah is a painter, he's such a cute young boy, with his confusion of being gay and what it means to come out is so cleverly portrayed through this character. The frustration and tension is palpable between him and Brian. The want of your heart desires and the reality of doing and facing the backlash from the people around you is what stops him. Noah has never been perceived as 'normal' to his class mates and being bullied is a daily problem until he meets the new kid Brian who is a baseball player for his local school, with Brian by his side he becomes socially accepted, even though he knows that Brian is a bit of geek like himself with his meteorite collections.
Jude an ambitious sculptor is a young impressionable girl at the age of 14, however as she is telling her POV at the age of 16 she has had a lot of time to develop but also grieve at the same time. Jude is struggling at school, she hasn't made any good artwork for the past 2 years and believes there is someone out to destroy her pieces. She has one last chance to make it right and is sent to work with a local but famous sculptor. The sculptor has problems of his own and between the both of them they start to overcome their grief through the process of sculpting.
Oscar is not the typical cool guy, who has everything going for him with his distinguishable features, his past and present he is also on the road to self discovery. When we first meet Oscar in Noah's perspective he is a drunk, with ambitions to be a model. 2 years later in Jude's perspective he is a recovering alcoholic/drug user, going to college for photography and has a cocky side to him which covers up the true Oscar.
“It occurs to me that Jude does this too, changes who she is depending on who she’s with. They’re like toads changing their skin color. How come I’m always just me?”
There were only two things that stopped me from giving this book 5 stars and it's not much but I had to factor them in. I found the book a bit predictable in some parts. You could tell how it was going to pan out. Also the ending felt a bit rushed for me towards the end, I think it could have been a bit longer to make the ending a bit more bulkier. The thing I liked with Nelson's writing is your reading away and then BAM! She just lets you have this incredible fact like it's nothing major and I had to reread to make sure I hadn't read it wrong. The grandma's bible that Jude follows got a bit tiresome in the end.
I went in to this book blind, not knowing too much about the premise and I recommend it, I like going in to books not knowing much it is more surprising and enjoyable to read. There are references in the book to famous people and quotes such as Winston Churchill and E.E Cummings. This book deals with love, bullying, grief, growing up, self discovery and all the challenges of being a teenager.
I recommend this book to anyone that likes to read Young Adult and Contemporary novels.
Overall I rated this book 4.5 stars out of 5.
I loved this book the writing was so poetic and beautiful. The story is written from two perspectives and at different times. Noah's perspective is written when he is 13. 5 years old and before 'said' tragedy struck and Jude's when she is 16 - two years later. At 13 years old the pair were close with sibling rivalries, respecting each others art and dividing the world up.
“I gave up practically the whole world for you,” I tell him, walking through the front door of my own love story. “The sun, stars, ocean, trees, everything, I gave it all up for you.”
At 16 the pair couldn't be further apart, they constantly avoid each other and barely talk. When lies start to unravel and they discover the truth, can they become two once more.
Noah is a painter, he's such a cute young boy, with his confusion of being gay and what it means to come out is so cleverly portrayed through this character. The frustration and tension is palpable between him and Brian. The want of your heart desires and the reality of doing and facing the backlash from the people around you is what stops him. Noah has never been perceived as 'normal' to his class mates and being bullied is a daily problem until he meets the new kid Brian who is a baseball player for his local school, with Brian by his side he becomes socially accepted, even though he knows that Brian is a bit of geek like himself with his meteorite collections.
Jude an ambitious sculptor is a young impressionable girl at the age of 14, however as she is telling her POV at the age of 16 she has had a lot of time to develop but also grieve at the same time. Jude is struggling at school, she hasn't made any good artwork for the past 2 years and believes there is someone out to destroy her pieces. She has one last chance to make it right and is sent to work with a local but famous sculptor. The sculptor has problems of his own and between the both of them they start to overcome their grief through the process of sculpting.
Oscar is not the typical cool guy, who has everything going for him with his distinguishable features, his past and present he is also on the road to self discovery. When we first meet Oscar in Noah's perspective he is a drunk, with ambitions to be a model. 2 years later in Jude's perspective he is a recovering alcoholic/drug user, going to college for photography and has a cocky side to him which covers up the true Oscar.
“It occurs to me that Jude does this too, changes who she is depending on who she’s with. They’re like toads changing their skin color. How come I’m always just me?”
There were only two things that stopped me from giving this book 5 stars and it's not much but I had to factor them in. I found the book a bit predictable in some parts. You could tell how it was going to pan out. Also the ending felt a bit rushed for me towards the end, I think it could have been a bit longer to make the ending a bit more bulkier. The thing I liked with Nelson's writing is your reading away and then BAM! She just lets you have this incredible fact like it's nothing major and I had to reread to make sure I hadn't read it wrong. The grandma's bible that Jude follows got a bit tiresome in the end.
I went in to this book blind, not knowing too much about the premise and I recommend it, I like going in to books not knowing much it is more surprising and enjoyable to read. There are references in the book to famous people and quotes such as Winston Churchill and E.E Cummings. This book deals with love, bullying, grief, growing up, self discovery and all the challenges of being a teenager.
I recommend this book to anyone that likes to read Young Adult and Contemporary novels.
Overall I rated this book 4.5 stars out of 5.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Cop Out (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis) and Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan) have been working as partners at the NYPD for the past nine years. They have a reputation at the precinct for doing things their own sporadic and wreckful way that isn't normal procedure and usually winds up getting them into hot water with the captain. A suspect is brought in for interrogation and when he finally spills the beans on a drug deal happening that afternoon, Jimmy and Paul think it's best to act on it right then and there. After their plan fails, their suspect is killed and months of work is flushed down the drain. Jimmy and Paul are suspended for 30 days without pay, which isn't good news for Jimmy since his daughter is getting married and has the typical expensive wedding of her dreams in mind. Jimmy plans on selling a collectible baseball card that could pay for his daughter's wedding and then some, but the card is stolen by some crackheads before he can get the chance. Now Jimmy's just trying to get the card back to pay for his daughter's wedding, but him and Paul, who's too distracted with his wife's possible infidelity to really concentrate on the task at hand, are thrown into something much deeper.
To tell the truth, I wasn't looking forward to this film at all. I'm a pretty big fan of most of Kevin Smith's work, but he didn't write the film. It could be argued that he did write Jersey Girl and that could be considered a bomb, but his films usually average about $25-$30 million anyway. A Kevin Smith film isn't really about bringing in a large amount of money at the box office. His charm is in his writing, especially the dialogue and interaction between characters. There's a very specific audience his films will appeal to and none of them have really branched away from that. But him not writing this one made me think, "Eh. Not sure what that'll be like since he didn't write it." When it comes to Bruce Willis, I've never talked to anyone who dislikes him entirely. There always seems to be at least one of his films everybody enjoys. Die Hard, The Fifth Element, and Sin City are just a few off the top of my head. The real buzz-killer for me though was Tracy Morgan. He's just never been funny to me. He was beyond lame on Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock has never been able to hold my attention for very long. Not to mention all the trailers for Cop Out didn't make me laugh. Thankfully though, first impressions can be so very wrong.
One of Cop Out's biggest charms is that it feels like a buddy cop comedy you've seen before, but have forgotten how much you enjoy it. The film feels similar to a 48 Hrs or Beverly Hills Cop film. Bulletproof is also a good example. Cop Out is pretty much what you expect when it comes to roles Bruce Willis chooses as it's pretty much no different than his role as John McClane on the surface, but he's a lot funnier this time around. As far as Tracy Morgan goes, the funniest thing I could remember him saying was his one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ("Man... I don't know what the f--- you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touched a brother's heart.") until this film. He was downright hilarious at times. The only person who was funnier than Morgan was Seann William Scott who stole every scene he was in. Even though Kevin Smith didn't pen the script this time around, it still feels like a Kevin Smith film. It could be due to the fact that Jason Lee has a small role in the film, but I like to think it's because Cop Out offers the same kind of comedy you'd find in a Kevin Smith film with a bit more action. It also took me forever to place Scarface from Half Baked as Poh Boy.
Cop Out is surprisingly funny and incredibly entertaining. Give this film a chance even if the trailers may not be doing anything for you. I felt the same way and wound up thoroughly enjoying the film. After a long, stressful day at work, an R-rated comedy with a lot of laughs is one of the best ways to relax and this film offers just that. It's a great film to go into with no expectations other than to just have a good time.
To tell the truth, I wasn't looking forward to this film at all. I'm a pretty big fan of most of Kevin Smith's work, but he didn't write the film. It could be argued that he did write Jersey Girl and that could be considered a bomb, but his films usually average about $25-$30 million anyway. A Kevin Smith film isn't really about bringing in a large amount of money at the box office. His charm is in his writing, especially the dialogue and interaction between characters. There's a very specific audience his films will appeal to and none of them have really branched away from that. But him not writing this one made me think, "Eh. Not sure what that'll be like since he didn't write it." When it comes to Bruce Willis, I've never talked to anyone who dislikes him entirely. There always seems to be at least one of his films everybody enjoys. Die Hard, The Fifth Element, and Sin City are just a few off the top of my head. The real buzz-killer for me though was Tracy Morgan. He's just never been funny to me. He was beyond lame on Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock has never been able to hold my attention for very long. Not to mention all the trailers for Cop Out didn't make me laugh. Thankfully though, first impressions can be so very wrong.
One of Cop Out's biggest charms is that it feels like a buddy cop comedy you've seen before, but have forgotten how much you enjoy it. The film feels similar to a 48 Hrs or Beverly Hills Cop film. Bulletproof is also a good example. Cop Out is pretty much what you expect when it comes to roles Bruce Willis chooses as it's pretty much no different than his role as John McClane on the surface, but he's a lot funnier this time around. As far as Tracy Morgan goes, the funniest thing I could remember him saying was his one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ("Man... I don't know what the f--- you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touched a brother's heart.") until this film. He was downright hilarious at times. The only person who was funnier than Morgan was Seann William Scott who stole every scene he was in. Even though Kevin Smith didn't pen the script this time around, it still feels like a Kevin Smith film. It could be due to the fact that Jason Lee has a small role in the film, but I like to think it's because Cop Out offers the same kind of comedy you'd find in a Kevin Smith film with a bit more action. It also took me forever to place Scarface from Half Baked as Poh Boy.
Cop Out is surprisingly funny and incredibly entertaining. Give this film a chance even if the trailers may not be doing anything for you. I felt the same way and wound up thoroughly enjoying the film. After a long, stressful day at work, an R-rated comedy with a lot of laughs is one of the best ways to relax and this film offers just that. It's a great film to go into with no expectations other than to just have a good time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Super 8 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Writer/Director/Producer JJ Abramas is one of film and televisions hottest talents. With credits that include Lost, Fringe, Alias, “Mission Impossible 3“, “Cloverfield“, and “Star Trek” on his resume and several projects in the works, Abrams is one of the shining young talents in Hollywood.
For his new film “Super 8” Abrams uses a small Ohio town in the summer of 1979 to set the stage for his tale about a group of friends who while shooting a zombie film project make a discovery that will shake the foundation of their rural community.
Following the tragic death of his mother in a mill accident, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), is deep in dispair over his loss. His father deputy Lamb (Kyle Chandler), is focused on his work and with this own grieving that he has no time to bond with his son.
When summer break arrives deputy Lamb thinks that Joe would be better off spedning a few weeks at a baseball camp instead of associating with his friends and making what he believes is a stupid zombie film.
Wishing to stay with his friends, Joe works to help his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths), finish his Super 8 film for a contest by providing the makeup for the film. When the group of friends sneak out one evening to film scenes at a train platform they are thrilled to have a local girl named Alice (Elle Fanning), on board the production. Joe has long had interest in Alice and the fact that she has borrowed her fathers car to drive them despite having her license is a big plus.
The filming is going well when they notice a truck driving into the path of an oncoming train and setting off a spectacular derailment and series of explosions.
When the smoke clears the friends learn that the truck was driven by their high school biology teacher who warns them not to say a word as their lives as well as their families lives will be in danger .
The friends return to town and keep quiet about what they have seen even when the military shows up and is clearly hiding something from the local population. When a series of bizzare events start to unfold it becomes clear that something has escaped from the train wreckage, and it is something that the military will go to any lengths to recover and are not about to let anyone stand in their way.
Caught between the military and a creature on the loose, Joe and his friends must find a way to get to the truth and save their town and friends before its to late.
The film moves at a very steady pace that does not lend itself to an action film. The movie is a character driven film about the youngsters and their coming of age relationships with one another as they are faced with a situation beyond their comprehension.
There is a good amount of humor in the film and the youngcast does very well with one another. I especially liked the character of Cary (Ryan Lee), who is obsesses with explosives and blowing things up. He provided plenety of light moments in the film as did other cast members who brought humanity to their parts with their foibles like having a weak stomach in times of stress.
My biggest issue with the film was that as good as the cast was the pacing was to slow as there was not enough action and suspense to sustain the films premise. The reveal of the creature was fairly matter of fact and lacked any real tension or surprise.
The film also suffered from having the adults in the film for the most part come across as incompetant individuals which forced the children to take action.
While this can be overlooked, I think the film could have used some more action and suspense as well as a tighter transition and pacing to the films final act as it came across as all to familiar with very little in the way of suspense or thrills.
“Super 8” played out as JJ Abrams nostalgic homage to the Steven Spielberg (who produced the film) movies of his childhood which so clearly influenced him. I saw many elements of Spielberg directed or produced classic such as the shadowy authority figures, child heroes, and the sense of wonder and growing up that made such fims as “E.T”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Gremlins” and “The Goonies” such beloved films.
That being said, “Super 8” is a fun and entertaining summer film that is enjoyable if not original. The nostalgic soundtrack and look of the era is captured well and provides for a pleasant summer distraction.
For his new film “Super 8” Abrams uses a small Ohio town in the summer of 1979 to set the stage for his tale about a group of friends who while shooting a zombie film project make a discovery that will shake the foundation of their rural community.
Following the tragic death of his mother in a mill accident, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), is deep in dispair over his loss. His father deputy Lamb (Kyle Chandler), is focused on his work and with this own grieving that he has no time to bond with his son.
When summer break arrives deputy Lamb thinks that Joe would be better off spedning a few weeks at a baseball camp instead of associating with his friends and making what he believes is a stupid zombie film.
Wishing to stay with his friends, Joe works to help his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths), finish his Super 8 film for a contest by providing the makeup for the film. When the group of friends sneak out one evening to film scenes at a train platform they are thrilled to have a local girl named Alice (Elle Fanning), on board the production. Joe has long had interest in Alice and the fact that she has borrowed her fathers car to drive them despite having her license is a big plus.
The filming is going well when they notice a truck driving into the path of an oncoming train and setting off a spectacular derailment and series of explosions.
When the smoke clears the friends learn that the truck was driven by their high school biology teacher who warns them not to say a word as their lives as well as their families lives will be in danger .
The friends return to town and keep quiet about what they have seen even when the military shows up and is clearly hiding something from the local population. When a series of bizzare events start to unfold it becomes clear that something has escaped from the train wreckage, and it is something that the military will go to any lengths to recover and are not about to let anyone stand in their way.
Caught between the military and a creature on the loose, Joe and his friends must find a way to get to the truth and save their town and friends before its to late.
The film moves at a very steady pace that does not lend itself to an action film. The movie is a character driven film about the youngsters and their coming of age relationships with one another as they are faced with a situation beyond their comprehension.
There is a good amount of humor in the film and the youngcast does very well with one another. I especially liked the character of Cary (Ryan Lee), who is obsesses with explosives and blowing things up. He provided plenety of light moments in the film as did other cast members who brought humanity to their parts with their foibles like having a weak stomach in times of stress.
My biggest issue with the film was that as good as the cast was the pacing was to slow as there was not enough action and suspense to sustain the films premise. The reveal of the creature was fairly matter of fact and lacked any real tension or surprise.
The film also suffered from having the adults in the film for the most part come across as incompetant individuals which forced the children to take action.
While this can be overlooked, I think the film could have used some more action and suspense as well as a tighter transition and pacing to the films final act as it came across as all to familiar with very little in the way of suspense or thrills.
“Super 8” played out as JJ Abrams nostalgic homage to the Steven Spielberg (who produced the film) movies of his childhood which so clearly influenced him. I saw many elements of Spielberg directed or produced classic such as the shadowy authority figures, child heroes, and the sense of wonder and growing up that made such fims as “E.T”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Gremlins” and “The Goonies” such beloved films.
That being said, “Super 8” is a fun and entertaining summer film that is enjoyable if not original. The nostalgic soundtrack and look of the era is captured well and provides for a pleasant summer distraction.