Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Limitless (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After years of hearing women saying this I can now agree that Bradley Cooper does indeed have beautiful eyes. If you don’t believe me go see his new movie Limitless based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn. The movie has so many close-ups of Bradley’s face that you find yourself staring into these blue orbs of beauty, approximately 6 feet across, that utterly mesmerize you and take you to a peaceful place where mice, cats and dogs get along.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
Taryn K (441 KP) rated Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma in Books
Oct 18, 2017
The characters, which are well-developed, for the most part. (1 more)
The dishes, which I was surprised to learn have actually been tested before being put into the books.
Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma (the series)
I have been reading Food Wars since volume 1 came out and now that book 20 has recently been released in the United States, I still enjoy this rather unique food-based manga.
The hero, Yukihira Soma, has been raised as the only child of a single father who runs a diner called Yukihira. One day, his father tells Soma that he has enrolled him in a culinary school and that he will be off helping friends for a while. Soma doesn't think much of this idea, but goes to take the test for Totsuki Teahouse Culinary Academy and settles into Polaris Dormitory, and so the story begins.
Soma has quirks, and lots of them. You know he's getting serious when he whips his headband off his wrist and dons it and his apron (which I've not figured out yet where he keeps that). He has no end of confidence, and often says the first thing that comes to his mind, which gets him in trouble a lot of the time. He's determined to be the top student at the academy so that he can beat his dad eventually in a food competition, of which he's lost several during his childhood. Despite this, he is eager to learn new things and never gives up. He is loyal to his friends and has a strong sense of justice.
Totsuki Teahouse Culinary Academy isn't exactly the most normal school anyway. It is a fact that over 90% or more of the students either get expelled, fail out, or drop out, and the idea behind the academy is that most of the students are there merely to "polish" the students who make it through the final year of high school. It is run not only by Dean Nakiri, but by the Council of Ten, who are the top ten students at the school. Disputes between the students are settled by Shokugeki, which have very strict rules.
I think my favorite story arc is the one with the Fall Classic (books 6-13), where 100 selected first year high school students compete to see who is the best. The winners usually go on to become part of the Council of Ten. Many things happen in this arc, from Soma and Megumi (a girl from Polaris, who learns a lot about cooking and confidence from Soma) learning about curry and spices, to Soma's dad coming for a visit, to a copycat chef who wins other students' favorite cutlery from them in Shokugeki, to the surprise finish of the Classic under the light of the full moon.
I would definitely recommend this manga series if you enjoyed other food series such as Yakitate!! Japan. It's a lot of fun and drama all wrapped up in a tasty bow. The manga series is still on-going, with an anime which has just entered its third season.
The hero, Yukihira Soma, has been raised as the only child of a single father who runs a diner called Yukihira. One day, his father tells Soma that he has enrolled him in a culinary school and that he will be off helping friends for a while. Soma doesn't think much of this idea, but goes to take the test for Totsuki Teahouse Culinary Academy and settles into Polaris Dormitory, and so the story begins.
Soma has quirks, and lots of them. You know he's getting serious when he whips his headband off his wrist and dons it and his apron (which I've not figured out yet where he keeps that). He has no end of confidence, and often says the first thing that comes to his mind, which gets him in trouble a lot of the time. He's determined to be the top student at the academy so that he can beat his dad eventually in a food competition, of which he's lost several during his childhood. Despite this, he is eager to learn new things and never gives up. He is loyal to his friends and has a strong sense of justice.
Totsuki Teahouse Culinary Academy isn't exactly the most normal school anyway. It is a fact that over 90% or more of the students either get expelled, fail out, or drop out, and the idea behind the academy is that most of the students are there merely to "polish" the students who make it through the final year of high school. It is run not only by Dean Nakiri, but by the Council of Ten, who are the top ten students at the school. Disputes between the students are settled by Shokugeki, which have very strict rules.
I think my favorite story arc is the one with the Fall Classic (books 6-13), where 100 selected first year high school students compete to see who is the best. The winners usually go on to become part of the Council of Ten. Many things happen in this arc, from Soma and Megumi (a girl from Polaris, who learns a lot about cooking and confidence from Soma) learning about curry and spices, to Soma's dad coming for a visit, to a copycat chef who wins other students' favorite cutlery from them in Shokugeki, to the surprise finish of the Classic under the light of the full moon.
I would definitely recommend this manga series if you enjoyed other food series such as Yakitate!! Japan. It's a lot of fun and drama all wrapped up in a tasty bow. The manga series is still on-going, with an anime which has just entered its third season.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Batfleck (1 more)
It's every comic fan's childhood dream
Sloppy editing (2 more)
Bad performances
Poor script
A Whole Mess Of Awesome
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, if you are reading this I assume you have at least read a few other reviews of the movie, as it is all that anyone is talking about online at the minute, so what is left to say I hear you ask? Well first off I’ll give you some context, for the last three years I have been reading and collecting comics to an obsessive level and it is due to this movie. I have always been a superhero fan (especially Batman,) and I had read some comics in the past, but when this movie was announced at San Diego Comic-Con in 2013, (3 years ago!!) I was so hyped and I decided that I had to read the comic that this film was taking inspiration from. So I went to my local A1 Comics and bought The Dark Knight Returns, which underwhelmed me but that’s another story. Since then I have become a huge comic book fan and that is thanks to this movie. Seriously what was not to like here, it would have been so difficult to get this wrong, it’s Batman fighting Superman, how amazing is it that this actually happened? And yet they still managed to fuck it up…
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love and Rage against the machine.
The baby asked,
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Black Sails - Season 1 in TV
May 30, 2017
Great Cast (3 more)
Brilliant Action
Great Drama
Very Accurate (thought not 100%)
Game of Thrones with Pirates
I was unawares during my first initial viewing of this show that this was in fact a prequel of sorts to the famous classic novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island. Though I knew that I had heard the names Flint and John Silver among others. However, I must admit, I have never seen, nor read any adaptation of the classic (I know shameful) but I intend to as it is in my collection of books and has been for years. I collected the 'Golden Library' collection which contains nearly all of the most classic books that are must reads for any book worm, and though I do not claim to be a book worm nor a large reader of any kind, I take interest in anything to do with Pirates, Vikings, and most historical fiction.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
great many of us film aficionados have, at one time or another, thought that they’ve seen so many films from so many different genres or written by so many ‘messed up’ writers or directed by so many warped minds that have simply ‘walked off the map’ that nothing and I mean absolutely nothing could shock us. We think we’ve ‘seen everything’ or have been ‘prepared’ for anything shocking that filmmakers might throw our way. As today’s film for your consideration will demonstrate, even folks like ‘us’ can be caught off guard by the occasional ‘curve ball’ by a writer, director, or actor/actress we’ve become acquainted with through their work over the years. I can say this much before we go any further … I have never seen nor did I ever imagine seeing Jim Carrey in a film like this.
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated The Long Earth in Books
Aug 13, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I’m a huge fan of Terry Pratchett’s work, in case you hadn’t noticed. I’m slowly working my way through his Discworld novels and Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Predictions of Agnes Nutter, Witch, cowritten with Neil Gaiman, is among my favorite books of all time.* So when I discovered The Long Earth at my local library, I was ecstatic. I’d heard good things about Stephen Baxter, but never actually read any of his material. What I found was one of the best novels I have read in a very long time.
The premise here is that there are infinite worlds parallel to ours, spread out across the vast “contingency tree” of possible Earths, and in all of the Long Earth only one iteration has developed Human life–ours. Throughout our history there have always been a few with the natural ability to “step” between worlds at will, and still others who did so unintentionally and disappeared forever, but the world at large was unaware of this phenomenon until a reclusive scientist posted the blueprint for a “stepper” device on the internet and promptly disappeared from his apartment. Suddenly, the whole of the Long Earth is opened up to humanity. Suddenly, there is no shortage of land or resources. Economies are hard hit, jobs are lost, and once again humanity’s pioneer spirit is stirred to go out into the frontier and try to make their way….
Joshua Valiente is a so-called “natural stepper,” but he is probably unique among humanity. In the stress of childbirth, his mother stepped out of her world and into a parallel forest before slipping back without him. She managed to get back and recover him pretty quickly, but nevertheless young Joshua spent the first ten minutes or so of his life completely alone in his universe. As a result, he is uniquely attuned to the Long Earth. He can step between worlds without nausea, and is keenly sensitive to the number of people around, growing intensely uncomfortable the more crowded things get. Now, fifteen years after the world learned of the Long Earth, he spends most of his time exploring where no man has gone before. Lobsang, on the other hand, is a keenly intelligent AI, who may or may not be the latest reincarnation of a Tibetan motorcycle repairman. In collaboration with the shadowy Black Corporation, Lobsang has conceived a plan to test just how far the Long Earth goes. And he wants Joshua to go with him….the resulting journey is as much an exploration of what may have been as it is a geographical one, with most worlds mirroring our own, but a few display the effects of a cosmic “toss of a coin” going the other way–for example, there’s one where the Earth was completely destroyed by an asteroid strike sometime in the distant past.
Put quite plainly, this was the best thing I’ve read in a very long time. Very original, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding very faithful to the relevant science without losing quality of narrative or character. Pratchett’s humor and sardonic narrative voice shines through quite often in the interpersonal or introspective moments as well as those detailing more plot driven points–those scenes that would, in a film, become some form of montage showing that time is passing and this is what’s happening in the meantime. As I mentioned, I’ve never read Baxter before, so it’s harder to pick out his voice from their collaboration.
Infodumping has become something of a cardinal sin in the science fiction world, but sometimes you just have to throw some information at the reader so that he doesn’t get lost. I felt that The Long Earth handled that very well. We get our first glimpse at the long earth in montage mode, a series of vignettes that don’t make sense on their own, people popping in and out of worlds without understanding themselves what is going on. This is followed by the main story, twenty years after the discovery of the Long Earth, in which the bare bones are presented via a TV interview a character is half-watching while he waits. These bare bones of the conceptual basis of the book are then fleshed out in more detail as Joshua and Lobsang and introduced and get to know each other, discussing the various theories regarding the Long Earth at length in an effort to better understand it themselves. This is interspersed with flashbacks, sometimes Joshua recalling his experiences, sometimes Lobsang telling stories of other people based on his research into early encounters with the Long Earth. In this way Pratchett and Baxter manage to convey how humanity as a whole is dealing, not just Joshua and Lobsang. If I have one complaint with this it is not always clear why or how we are being told this–you don’t discover until the end of the chapter that Lobsang is telling this to Joshua instead of the authors just throwing in a tangential bit with no direct connection. And it is all connected–every revelation, every character you visit and then abandon early in the book will come back and have significance later on.
This is perhaps not the easiest read–you do have to engage it to understand it properly–but neither is it an incomprehensible enigma. As long as you pay attention you should be fine.
CONTENT: Some R-rated language, but not nearly what you could find elsewhere. Some violence, some grisly aftermath of violence. Sexual references, but nothing explicit.
*I’m frankly a little surprised I don’t have a review of that one up here, I must have reread it last just before I started doing this. I’ll have to fix that in the near future….
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/review-the-long-earth-by-terry-pratchett-stephen-baxter/
I’m a huge fan of Terry Pratchett’s work, in case you hadn’t noticed. I’m slowly working my way through his Discworld novels and Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Predictions of Agnes Nutter, Witch, cowritten with Neil Gaiman, is among my favorite books of all time.* So when I discovered The Long Earth at my local library, I was ecstatic. I’d heard good things about Stephen Baxter, but never actually read any of his material. What I found was one of the best novels I have read in a very long time.
The premise here is that there are infinite worlds parallel to ours, spread out across the vast “contingency tree” of possible Earths, and in all of the Long Earth only one iteration has developed Human life–ours. Throughout our history there have always been a few with the natural ability to “step” between worlds at will, and still others who did so unintentionally and disappeared forever, but the world at large was unaware of this phenomenon until a reclusive scientist posted the blueprint for a “stepper” device on the internet and promptly disappeared from his apartment. Suddenly, the whole of the Long Earth is opened up to humanity. Suddenly, there is no shortage of land or resources. Economies are hard hit, jobs are lost, and once again humanity’s pioneer spirit is stirred to go out into the frontier and try to make their way….
Joshua Valiente is a so-called “natural stepper,” but he is probably unique among humanity. In the stress of childbirth, his mother stepped out of her world and into a parallel forest before slipping back without him. She managed to get back and recover him pretty quickly, but nevertheless young Joshua spent the first ten minutes or so of his life completely alone in his universe. As a result, he is uniquely attuned to the Long Earth. He can step between worlds without nausea, and is keenly sensitive to the number of people around, growing intensely uncomfortable the more crowded things get. Now, fifteen years after the world learned of the Long Earth, he spends most of his time exploring where no man has gone before. Lobsang, on the other hand, is a keenly intelligent AI, who may or may not be the latest reincarnation of a Tibetan motorcycle repairman. In collaboration with the shadowy Black Corporation, Lobsang has conceived a plan to test just how far the Long Earth goes. And he wants Joshua to go with him….the resulting journey is as much an exploration of what may have been as it is a geographical one, with most worlds mirroring our own, but a few display the effects of a cosmic “toss of a coin” going the other way–for example, there’s one where the Earth was completely destroyed by an asteroid strike sometime in the distant past.
Put quite plainly, this was the best thing I’ve read in a very long time. Very original, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding very faithful to the relevant science without losing quality of narrative or character. Pratchett’s humor and sardonic narrative voice shines through quite often in the interpersonal or introspective moments as well as those detailing more plot driven points–those scenes that would, in a film, become some form of montage showing that time is passing and this is what’s happening in the meantime. As I mentioned, I’ve never read Baxter before, so it’s harder to pick out his voice from their collaboration.
Infodumping has become something of a cardinal sin in the science fiction world, but sometimes you just have to throw some information at the reader so that he doesn’t get lost. I felt that The Long Earth handled that very well. We get our first glimpse at the long earth in montage mode, a series of vignettes that don’t make sense on their own, people popping in and out of worlds without understanding themselves what is going on. This is followed by the main story, twenty years after the discovery of the Long Earth, in which the bare bones are presented via a TV interview a character is half-watching while he waits. These bare bones of the conceptual basis of the book are then fleshed out in more detail as Joshua and Lobsang and introduced and get to know each other, discussing the various theories regarding the Long Earth at length in an effort to better understand it themselves. This is interspersed with flashbacks, sometimes Joshua recalling his experiences, sometimes Lobsang telling stories of other people based on his research into early encounters with the Long Earth. In this way Pratchett and Baxter manage to convey how humanity as a whole is dealing, not just Joshua and Lobsang. If I have one complaint with this it is not always clear why or how we are being told this–you don’t discover until the end of the chapter that Lobsang is telling this to Joshua instead of the authors just throwing in a tangential bit with no direct connection. And it is all connected–every revelation, every character you visit and then abandon early in the book will come back and have significance later on.
This is perhaps not the easiest read–you do have to engage it to understand it properly–but neither is it an incomprehensible enigma. As long as you pay attention you should be fine.
CONTENT: Some R-rated language, but not nearly what you could find elsewhere. Some violence, some grisly aftermath of violence. Sexual references, but nothing explicit.
*I’m frankly a little surprised I don’t have a review of that one up here, I must have reread it last just before I started doing this. I’ll have to fix that in the near future….
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/review-the-long-earth-by-terry-pratchett-stephen-baxter/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Girl Last Seen in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Lainey was ten when she was taken. She spent three horrible years in her kidnapper's basement, enduring horrible things. Lainey is supposed to be "lucky," since she escaped, but it's hard for her to see it that way sometimes. Her entire life has been formed by that awful period in her life. And now, another girl has gone missing. Olivia Shaw, who looks exactly like Lainey did thirteen years ago. Lainey's kidnapper was never found: the police say because she could never give strong enough evidence to identify him. So Lainey has spent these years afraid, living in a haze of pills and booze, and waiting for something bad to happen. Well, something bad has happened. How exactly is Lainey involved, and is she ever going to be safe again?
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;