Search
La Bible(Louis Segond 1910) French Bible(HD)
Education and Book
App
La Bible(Louis Segond 1910) French Bible for iPad contains full text of Holy Bible in French for...
The Mad, Bad Duke (Nvengaria, #2)
10.0
Rate It
Book
London, 1820 Miss Meagan Tavistock doesn’t believe the talisman her friend purchases from a...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
History Within: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Bones, Organisms, and Molecules
Book
Personal genomics services such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com now offer what once was science fiction:...
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
From Director Spike Lee comes the incredible story of true American hero. In the early 1970s, Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) is the first African-American detective to serve in the Colorado Springs Police Department. Determined to make a name for himself, Stallworth bravely sets out on a dangerous mission: infiltrate and expose the Ku Klux Klan. The movie is based on Stallworth’s 2014 book Black Klansman, which details his experience. When it came time to meet the Klan members face-to-face, he utilized the help of a white undercover narcotics officer (Adam Driver in the movie), who posed as Stallworth for all in-person meetings with the Klan. Together, they team up to take down the extremist hate group as the organization aims to sanitize its violent rhetoric to appeal to the mainstream.
The film is very creative in the way that it presents history and allows the audience ride along with the action, suspense, and anxiety experience by Washington and Driver’s characters. The tone of the film, at times, is lighthearted in its approach but quickly draws you back in when faced with the reality that David Duke, and people like him walk among us dressing up their racism with non-threatening slogans, professional attire, and a clean-cut package.
The story displayed is a reminder that racism in America has a long history and is not isolated geographically to the south nor limited to Charlottesville or Charleston. The attitudes and actions committed by those who agree with the stances of white supremacy and white supremacist organizations have had a drastic impact on the development of American society. It has shaped and misshapen our attitudes towards one another. It continues to affect us today as we all bear witness to unbridled racism or the downplaying of racism with terms like “political correctness.” This film is timely in its approach and offers audiences a more full and expansive view of what combatting racism and racist attitudes and actions looks like.
Blackkklansman is a film that many have waited for when first hearing about the story of Ron Stallworth and they will not be disappointed with what they witness on screen. Sadly, the people who desperately need to see this movie may pass on it because they are uncomfortable with the subject matter and the reality that they themselves may be complicit in the continuance of racism and white supremacy. This film feels like a conversation being conducted directly between the director and audience. There are subtleties that allow the audience to think about the meaning and even parallel between the early 1970s and the current political environment, as well as, moments where there is no hiding of the message, no metaphor, no allegory. The filmmakers make it clear for those watching that many of us need to wake up almost as blatantly as Spike Lee promotes one of his earlier films, School Daze.
The only problem I found with the film was that I was left wanting more discussion. I wanted to see more of what Ron Stallworth dealt with as the only black detective in his department. If anything, this shows a real strength in the film by leaving audiences emotionally connected with the horrors that he faced, as well as, the way that those around him come to grips with the reality of the hatred and racial violence that had overlooked before because it did not have a direct effect on them. Blackkklansman is a film that will have audiences reflecting long after the credits have rolled. Hopefully the themes, metaphors, and overall message will help foster overdue and well-needed conversations about race, racism, prejudice, and violence. This film takes audiences out of their comfort zones and forces them to face some of the dark corners of America for two hours. Within that two hours, hopefully the people who don’t recognize racism and bigotry get a glimpse of the true horror and fear that marginalized communities feel on a daily basis so that they themselves can be agents of change and fight against racism.
The film is very creative in the way that it presents history and allows the audience ride along with the action, suspense, and anxiety experience by Washington and Driver’s characters. The tone of the film, at times, is lighthearted in its approach but quickly draws you back in when faced with the reality that David Duke, and people like him walk among us dressing up their racism with non-threatening slogans, professional attire, and a clean-cut package.
The story displayed is a reminder that racism in America has a long history and is not isolated geographically to the south nor limited to Charlottesville or Charleston. The attitudes and actions committed by those who agree with the stances of white supremacy and white supremacist organizations have had a drastic impact on the development of American society. It has shaped and misshapen our attitudes towards one another. It continues to affect us today as we all bear witness to unbridled racism or the downplaying of racism with terms like “political correctness.” This film is timely in its approach and offers audiences a more full and expansive view of what combatting racism and racist attitudes and actions looks like.
Blackkklansman is a film that many have waited for when first hearing about the story of Ron Stallworth and they will not be disappointed with what they witness on screen. Sadly, the people who desperately need to see this movie may pass on it because they are uncomfortable with the subject matter and the reality that they themselves may be complicit in the continuance of racism and white supremacy. This film feels like a conversation being conducted directly between the director and audience. There are subtleties that allow the audience to think about the meaning and even parallel between the early 1970s and the current political environment, as well as, moments where there is no hiding of the message, no metaphor, no allegory. The filmmakers make it clear for those watching that many of us need to wake up almost as blatantly as Spike Lee promotes one of his earlier films, School Daze.
The only problem I found with the film was that I was left wanting more discussion. I wanted to see more of what Ron Stallworth dealt with as the only black detective in his department. If anything, this shows a real strength in the film by leaving audiences emotionally connected with the horrors that he faced, as well as, the way that those around him come to grips with the reality of the hatred and racial violence that had overlooked before because it did not have a direct effect on them. Blackkklansman is a film that will have audiences reflecting long after the credits have rolled. Hopefully the themes, metaphors, and overall message will help foster overdue and well-needed conversations about race, racism, prejudice, and violence. This film takes audiences out of their comfort zones and forces them to face some of the dark corners of America for two hours. Within that two hours, hopefully the people who don’t recognize racism and bigotry get a glimpse of the true horror and fear that marginalized communities feel on a daily basis so that they themselves can be agents of change and fight against racism.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Swords of Silence in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2886479579">The Swords of Silence</a> - ★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Book-Review-Banner-20.png"/>;
I was born and raised in a country where religion is sacred. I was surrounded with Christianity all my life. However, while I have learned lessons of love, respect and hope, I am not a believer. I do believe that we need to be kind to each other, respect each other and hope for a better tomorrow, but I don't believe there is a God out there who decides our faith. My review is based on how I felt while reading and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be respected for that.
The Swords of Silence features father Joaquim, who moves to Japan in the 1620's, to share the religion of Christ. However, the brutal regime in Japan forbids any other religion than Buddhism. The Shogun is determined there is no more Christianity in his country. Throughout the book, we follow Joaquim's journey, where he manages to get captured and escapes several times, with the help of God.
<b><i>This book perfectly captures the regime in Japan during this time.</i></b>
The true terror and the brutal punishments if you ever dare make a mistake. The world of no mercy. But this book is also a product of divine inspiration and has great elements some of us consider fantasy.
<b>Many of the scenes in The Swords of Silence that featured escaping were unrealistic and resembled the Bible stories.</b> We had walking on water, moving of mountains and a big storm in the sea that only affects the enemy ship, even though they are only metres away from father Joaquim's ship.
There is one scene though, that I was absolutely in awe with, and that was the scene with the duels. As a person who trained karate all my life and is very familiar with the rules of a duel, honour, respect and combat in martial arts - this scene was perfectly set and accurate. It brought all the emotions and it was brutally realistic. And it is because of this scene that I will give this book three stars.
The Swords of Silence is a great book, and I love the fact that the author captured moments in history that were true and brutal, and not many people in the world know about. A story that will make people aware of what was happening in the past. Even though I am not a believer in God, I stand by that people shouldn't be mistreated, bullied, or in this case - brutally murdered for what they believe in. Everyone has the right to believe in anything they believe in.
If this book was more realistic with the events and scenes, I would have given it five stars for the message it shares with the world.
<b><i>True fact: Around 1% of the population in Japan claims Christian belief or affiliation. Most large Christian denominations are repressed in Japan today.</i></b>
Thank you to LoveReading UK, the publisher Harper Collins UK and the author, Shaun Curry, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2886479579">The Swords of Silence</a> - ★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Book-Review-Banner-20.png"/>;
I was born and raised in a country where religion is sacred. I was surrounded with Christianity all my life. However, while I have learned lessons of love, respect and hope, I am not a believer. I do believe that we need to be kind to each other, respect each other and hope for a better tomorrow, but I don't believe there is a God out there who decides our faith. My review is based on how I felt while reading and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be respected for that.
The Swords of Silence features father Joaquim, who moves to Japan in the 1620's, to share the religion of Christ. However, the brutal regime in Japan forbids any other religion than Buddhism. The Shogun is determined there is no more Christianity in his country. Throughout the book, we follow Joaquim's journey, where he manages to get captured and escapes several times, with the help of God.
<b><i>This book perfectly captures the regime in Japan during this time.</i></b>
The true terror and the brutal punishments if you ever dare make a mistake. The world of no mercy. But this book is also a product of divine inspiration and has great elements some of us consider fantasy.
<b>Many of the scenes in The Swords of Silence that featured escaping were unrealistic and resembled the Bible stories.</b> We had walking on water, moving of mountains and a big storm in the sea that only affects the enemy ship, even though they are only metres away from father Joaquim's ship.
There is one scene though, that I was absolutely in awe with, and that was the scene with the duels. As a person who trained karate all my life and is very familiar with the rules of a duel, honour, respect and combat in martial arts - this scene was perfectly set and accurate. It brought all the emotions and it was brutally realistic. And it is because of this scene that I will give this book three stars.
The Swords of Silence is a great book, and I love the fact that the author captured moments in history that were true and brutal, and not many people in the world know about. A story that will make people aware of what was happening in the past. Even though I am not a believer in God, I stand by that people shouldn't be mistreated, bullied, or in this case - brutally murdered for what they believe in. Everyone has the right to believe in anything they believe in.
If this book was more realistic with the events and scenes, I would have given it five stars for the message it shares with the world.
<b><i>True fact: Around 1% of the population in Japan claims Christian belief or affiliation. Most large Christian denominations are repressed in Japan today.</i></b>
Thank you to LoveReading UK, the publisher Harper Collins UK and the author, Shaun Curry, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Chocolat (Chocolat #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have lost count of the number of times I have watched the movie that is based off of this book, so I figured it was time for me to read the book. Like most movies based on books, the movie is only about half true to the book. In this case though, that did not really bother me.
Joanne Harris has a way of writing that has me savoring every word like one of Vianne Rocher's fine chunks of dark chocolate. What I would have given for a few recipes of the dishes she served in La Celeste Praline, especially the pots of chocolate that were served as frequently as coffee. The descriptions of the various confectioneries and even the non-chocolate dishes were detailed with a light touch, so that I never felt too overwhelmed -- but I still wanted to dive into the pages all the same.
All of the characters, large parts and small, were unique and original, even down to the quirky preferences and hidden burdens. I could easily relate to Armande's attraction to the color red and her unrefined mannerisms, as well as Guillaume's indulgence of his pet dog. So many of the characters could pass for people that I encounter every day -- from Roux's skepticism to Josephine's renewed independence to Caro's need to control. These characters will stay with me for a long time.
Probably the most interesting character, aside from Vianne Rocher, is the town's priest, Pere Reynaud. Like most of the rest of the town, he masks inner demons and makes up for them with his profession of choice. Though those inner torments are slowly revealed through the course of the book, I don't feel that his story was completely resolved, or that he even experienced any true character growth.
Vianne Rocher is certainly the most creative character in the book, both easily likeable and eternally mysterious. Haunted by memories of a nomadic lifestyle with her mother, she intermittently addresses her conflicting desires to both travel and put down roots even as her simple, self-taught cooking and hospitality brings about subtle and lasting change in the village of Lansquenet. A thread of fantasy runs through the plot as Vianne hints at the ability to read people's thoughts, choosing not to influence them, and consults her mother's tarot cards in her darker hours of contemplation. She even adds a touch of magic and mystery to her Chocolaterie to draw the wary villagers into the shop. Oh, what I would give to pay a visit to that amazing place myself.
Joanne Harris has a way of writing that has me savoring every word like one of Vianne Rocher's fine chunks of dark chocolate. What I would have given for a few recipes of the dishes she served in La Celeste Praline, especially the pots of chocolate that were served as frequently as coffee. The descriptions of the various confectioneries and even the non-chocolate dishes were detailed with a light touch, so that I never felt too overwhelmed -- but I still wanted to dive into the pages all the same.
All of the characters, large parts and small, were unique and original, even down to the quirky preferences and hidden burdens. I could easily relate to Armande's attraction to the color red and her unrefined mannerisms, as well as Guillaume's indulgence of his pet dog. So many of the characters could pass for people that I encounter every day -- from Roux's skepticism to Josephine's renewed independence to Caro's need to control. These characters will stay with me for a long time.
Probably the most interesting character, aside from Vianne Rocher, is the town's priest, Pere Reynaud. Like most of the rest of the town, he masks inner demons and makes up for them with his profession of choice. Though those inner torments are slowly revealed through the course of the book, I don't feel that his story was completely resolved, or that he even experienced any true character growth.
Vianne Rocher is certainly the most creative character in the book, both easily likeable and eternally mysterious. Haunted by memories of a nomadic lifestyle with her mother, she intermittently addresses her conflicting desires to both travel and put down roots even as her simple, self-taught cooking and hospitality brings about subtle and lasting change in the village of Lansquenet. A thread of fantasy runs through the plot as Vianne hints at the ability to read people's thoughts, choosing not to influence them, and consults her mother's tarot cards in her darker hours of contemplation. She even adds a touch of magic and mystery to her Chocolaterie to draw the wary villagers into the shop. Oh, what I would give to pay a visit to that amazing place myself.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019
Collapses under the weight of it's own earnestness
The filmmakers behind the true story of HARRIET, the film based on the remarkable actions of Harriet Tubman (the former slave who helped free others slaves via the Underground Railroad) were surprised to find that there had been no accurate film portrayal of this remarkable woman, so they set out to make one.
And the result, was a film that is very deep in accuracy and very slight everywhere else.
Starring Cynthia Erivo (WIDOWS), HARRIET tells the tale of Harriet Tubman from her time as a slave, through her escape to freedom and her return (many, many times) via the "Underground Railroad" to free many other slaves. Her story is astonishing, filled with heroes, villains, visions, successes and failures and should have lent itself to a film befitting of the great heights this woman achieved.
Unfortunately, Writer Director Kasi Lemmons (EVE'S BAYOU) spends a great deal of the film showing the actual, accurate events of Tubman's tale, so much so that it suffers one of the most deadly of sins in filmdom - it drags into boredom under the weight of it's own earnestness. Lemmons, obviously, has great respect for Tubman and shows her in a reverential light throughout this film, showing few (if any) warts and giving us a one-note character that is laser-focused on her purpose, and not much else. While this might have been true-to-life, it does not lend itself to an interesting film.
The same goes for the lead performance from Erivo. I have liked her previous work in films like WIDOWS and BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE, so was excited to see her take the lead in an important film like this. But...her portrayal is one-note and slight and does not plumb the depths of a character that I am sure has many, many more layers than is portrayed on this screen.
The supporting cast (including Leslie Odom, Jr, Vondie Curtis-Hall and Clarke Peters) are also earnest and slight and don't really add anything to the proceedings. Only Janelle Monae, as a fictional free black woman who becomes a mentor of sorts to Tubman, seems to rise above this weak script.
Usually, in films about slavery, the evil (or conflicted) slave owners have a tendency to shine out because of their wickedness (or their confliction) - but in this film, and with this script, Joe Alwyn as Gideon Brodess (the fictional owner of Tubman who is obsessed with bringing her back to slavery) and Jennifer Nettles (as his mother) are...you guessed it...slight and underwritten and don't really bring anything to the proceedings.
What this film did do - and did do well - was make me want to find out more about this hero...and that is a good thing. So, if that is all this film does, then I applaud the attempt, I just wished it would have landed as a film in a much stronger way.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And the result, was a film that is very deep in accuracy and very slight everywhere else.
Starring Cynthia Erivo (WIDOWS), HARRIET tells the tale of Harriet Tubman from her time as a slave, through her escape to freedom and her return (many, many times) via the "Underground Railroad" to free many other slaves. Her story is astonishing, filled with heroes, villains, visions, successes and failures and should have lent itself to a film befitting of the great heights this woman achieved.
Unfortunately, Writer Director Kasi Lemmons (EVE'S BAYOU) spends a great deal of the film showing the actual, accurate events of Tubman's tale, so much so that it suffers one of the most deadly of sins in filmdom - it drags into boredom under the weight of it's own earnestness. Lemmons, obviously, has great respect for Tubman and shows her in a reverential light throughout this film, showing few (if any) warts and giving us a one-note character that is laser-focused on her purpose, and not much else. While this might have been true-to-life, it does not lend itself to an interesting film.
The same goes for the lead performance from Erivo. I have liked her previous work in films like WIDOWS and BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE, so was excited to see her take the lead in an important film like this. But...her portrayal is one-note and slight and does not plumb the depths of a character that I am sure has many, many more layers than is portrayed on this screen.
The supporting cast (including Leslie Odom, Jr, Vondie Curtis-Hall and Clarke Peters) are also earnest and slight and don't really add anything to the proceedings. Only Janelle Monae, as a fictional free black woman who becomes a mentor of sorts to Tubman, seems to rise above this weak script.
Usually, in films about slavery, the evil (or conflicted) slave owners have a tendency to shine out because of their wickedness (or their confliction) - but in this film, and with this script, Joe Alwyn as Gideon Brodess (the fictional owner of Tubman who is obsessed with bringing her back to slavery) and Jennifer Nettles (as his mother) are...you guessed it...slight and underwritten and don't really bring anything to the proceedings.
What this film did do - and did do well - was make me want to find out more about this hero...and that is a good thing. So, if that is all this film does, then I applaud the attempt, I just wished it would have landed as a film in a much stronger way.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)