Search
This story was heartbreaking and maddening, horrific and unbelievable, sad and disturbing. I don't usually read books that are based on real events - something about knowing it's true turns me off, but I wanted to give this a try. It's still not something I found particularly enthralling, but it was definitely an interesting read.
Honestly, I can't decide who I despise more, Shelly or Dave! Both did horrendous things, but Dave's obvious disregard for what happened, turning a blind eye to what he witnessed and *still* insisting that there was no abuse, denying that there could have been anything wrong happening while being a partial participant, his refusal to face the facts seriously pissed me off. As for Shelly, how a person can do such things to another human being, let alone her own children, baffles me and makes me sick. Spout off as much as you want about her having a mental illness, I don't care, what she did was disgusting and I don't think she'll spend nearly enough years in prison. My heart goes out to the sisters. I dealt with abuse from my mother when I was young, but certainly not to this degree, and I can't imagine how painful it was for them (not just physically, but mentally and emotionally). The ending, knowing that each woman was healing and moving on, creating their own happiness, put a big smile on my face!
Honestly, I can't decide who I despise more, Shelly or Dave! Both did horrendous things, but Dave's obvious disregard for what happened, turning a blind eye to what he witnessed and *still* insisting that there was no abuse, denying that there could have been anything wrong happening while being a partial participant, his refusal to face the facts seriously pissed me off. As for Shelly, how a person can do such things to another human being, let alone her own children, baffles me and makes me sick. Spout off as much as you want about her having a mental illness, I don't care, what she did was disgusting and I don't think she'll spend nearly enough years in prison. My heart goes out to the sisters. I dealt with abuse from my mother when I was young, but certainly not to this degree, and I can't imagine how painful it was for them (not just physically, but mentally and emotionally). The ending, knowing that each woman was healing and moving on, creating their own happiness, put a big smile on my face!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Important Movie
Set in the 1970’s, the first black police officer on the Colorado Springs police force attempts to infiltrate the Klu Klux Klan by becoming one of them.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
JT (287 KP) rated The Oxford Murders (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
From the first couple of scenes you’d half expect to see Inspector Morse and Lewis step out from behind one of the great pillars that surround Oxford University – sadly that is not going to be the case here. The story itself could have been taken right out of an Agatha Christie novel but the subsequent plot gets mixed up like the mathematical equation it is trying to lay out.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
Vladimir Jabotinsky's Story of My Life
Brian J. Horowitz and Leonid Katsis
Book
Vladimir Jabotinsky is well remembered as a militant leader and father of the right-wing Revisionist...
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Korean director Joon-ho Bong takes us on a Science fiction ride with Snowpiercer. Based on the graphic novel Le Transperceneige, Snowpiercer is a story set on a train which acts as a human Noah’s Ark as it is the only place to survive after an attempt to stop global warming caused the planet to over freeze and become inhabitable. Not only is the train humanity’s last salvation, but it also mirrors human society as each portion of the train represents a different class structure. The poor and underprivileged are kept imprisoned in the back of the train, while the first class passengers are living in privilege in the front of the train. When the back of the train has finally had enough, they revolt and attempt to take control of the train and improve their place.
This is the film that Chris Evans chose to do in-between filming The Avengers and Captain America: Winter Soldier. In my opinion, he made a great choice. To me, Evans has always been just blah and one-dimensional. While he does not stray too far from how we have seen him act in the past, this film gives him a chance to show some depth and grit of character that we have not truly seen from him. Everyone looks at him as being the leader and you can see why. He embodies that character. I was impressed by his performance.
Along with Evans, Tilda Swinton helps carry this film from basic Sci-Fi ride to better than average film. She is fantastic in this film. She plays Mason, the governance of the train that helps keep things in order. She is the one that comes down from the front of the train and explains how and why the people in the back should keep their place. She steals the show with her presence every time she is on screen and gives a fantastic performance that causes us to both spite her, but also understand she is doing what is best for the train.
Without revealing too much about the story, the pacing of the film is great. It is not in a rush to get you from point A to point B, but rather takes the time to intertwine character development into story. The first half of the film is the revolt film where we see the dregs of life and the fight for freedom. The second half of the film is the reveal of wonderment where we see how the other side lives. In true Sci-Fi fashion, the story is a social commentary on our current place in society with regards to the richest 1% in the world. The revolt changes to a question of control which in turn changes to a question of true freedom, but at what cost?
I would recommend this film to any Sci-Fi fans or anyone looking for a thoughtful film and change of pace from the big summer blockbuster.
For a more in-depth discussion about the film, be sure to check out our podcast review.
This is the film that Chris Evans chose to do in-between filming The Avengers and Captain America: Winter Soldier. In my opinion, he made a great choice. To me, Evans has always been just blah and one-dimensional. While he does not stray too far from how we have seen him act in the past, this film gives him a chance to show some depth and grit of character that we have not truly seen from him. Everyone looks at him as being the leader and you can see why. He embodies that character. I was impressed by his performance.
Along with Evans, Tilda Swinton helps carry this film from basic Sci-Fi ride to better than average film. She is fantastic in this film. She plays Mason, the governance of the train that helps keep things in order. She is the one that comes down from the front of the train and explains how and why the people in the back should keep their place. She steals the show with her presence every time she is on screen and gives a fantastic performance that causes us to both spite her, but also understand she is doing what is best for the train.
Without revealing too much about the story, the pacing of the film is great. It is not in a rush to get you from point A to point B, but rather takes the time to intertwine character development into story. The first half of the film is the revolt film where we see the dregs of life and the fight for freedom. The second half of the film is the reveal of wonderment where we see how the other side lives. In true Sci-Fi fashion, the story is a social commentary on our current place in society with regards to the richest 1% in the world. The revolt changes to a question of control which in turn changes to a question of true freedom, but at what cost?
I would recommend this film to any Sci-Fi fans or anyone looking for a thoughtful film and change of pace from the big summer blockbuster.
For a more in-depth discussion about the film, be sure to check out our podcast review.
Merissa (11950 KP) rated Sexless in Seattle in Books
Feb 6, 2024
SEXLESS IN SEATTLE is the first book in a new series and is loosely based upon Sleepless in Seattle (no surprise there!)
Zach and Eric lost their parents two years ago, and Zach gave up everything to look after his brother, who was only ten at the time. Zach was only twenty and missed out on a lot of things. Luckily for him, he still has his friend group who try to make things better. Tristan is a little older than Zach and is looking for love. He's had enough of hookups. Through Eric's machinations, these two start texting and then the story moves along.
Low angst and super sweet - that's what you'll get if you pick this book up, and I loved every word! Zach and Tristan were great characters who weren't too good to be true. They both had doubts and fears but also communicated and thought about each other. I loved how they both changed in the bedroom! It was hot and steamy between them when they finally reached that stage, but I loved that Tristan took it slowly for Zach.
A great story and loads of other characters I now want stories for! Plus Skylar's!!! Absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Feb 6, 2024
Zach and Eric lost their parents two years ago, and Zach gave up everything to look after his brother, who was only ten at the time. Zach was only twenty and missed out on a lot of things. Luckily for him, he still has his friend group who try to make things better. Tristan is a little older than Zach and is looking for love. He's had enough of hookups. Through Eric's machinations, these two start texting and then the story moves along.
Low angst and super sweet - that's what you'll get if you pick this book up, and I loved every word! Zach and Tristan were great characters who weren't too good to be true. They both had doubts and fears but also communicated and thought about each other. I loved how they both changed in the bedroom! It was hot and steamy between them when they finally reached that stage, but I loved that Tristan took it slowly for Zach.
A great story and loads of other characters I now want stories for! Plus Skylar's!!! Absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Feb 6, 2024
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hillbilly Elegy (2020) in Movies
Apr 22, 2021
General Shoutiness and a glowering Glenn Close
I missed Ron Howard's "Hillbilly Elegy" when it came out at the end of last year, but principally wanted to catch up on it to see Glenn Close's Oscar nominated performance before Sunday's Oscars.
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.