Search
Search results
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guaranteeing a “safe passage through the anus”!
I’m neither a Marvel fan, nor (in particular) a Thor fan….. but I have to admit “Thor: Ragnarok” was brilliant from beginning to end.
Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been travelling the universe in search of… stuff… (I neither remember nor care)… but returns to his home planet of Asgard with a dire warning of impending ‘Raganrok’: this being the ‘End of Days’ for Asgard. But he finds the court engaged in serious leisure time!
ragnarok4
“Shave and a hair cut… two stripes”
Things go from bad to worse when Hela (Cate Blanchett, “Carol“) – someone with more than a passing relationship to Thor – arrives with a mission to assume the throne. Teamed uncomfortably with half-brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston, “High Rise”), the brothers get cast millions of light years away to a planet lorded over by a ‘grand master’ (a lovely performance, that I will leave anonymous here) who pits new gladiators in an arena against his latest champion. You’ll never guess who his champion is? Well, OK (cos the trailer gives it away)… he’s big and green!
ragnarok2
The grand master’s champion. Opponents are green with envy.
The film’s script is hilarious. It generates an enormous volume of entertainment with laugh-out loud moments throughout; the unforseen involvement of other Marvel characters; some startling cameos all mixed with the usual brand of spectacular fights and action. Some of the action is surprising: a real eye-opener you might say.
ragnarok3
Tessa Thompson as the Valkyrie in full flight.
The lead cast (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Blanchett and Ruffalo) all perform admirably and are joined by heavyweight cameos from Anthony Hopkins (“Westworld”) and Idris Elba (“Bastille Day“) reprising their roles from “Thor: The Dark World”. Particularly impressive is Tessa Thompson (“Creed“) as Thor’s Valkyrie warrior side-kick and Karl Urban (“Star Trek: Into Darkness“) as the turn-coat Asgardian Skurge.
ragnarok5
The real McCoy. Karl Urban as the Skurge of Asgard.
Directed by young New Zealander Taika Waititi (behind last year’s successful indie hit “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”) it’s a breath of fresh air for the Thor franchise, more similar to the style of “Guardians of the Galaxy” rather than the previous films in the series. Waititi also saves all the best comedy lines for himself as the ‘rock warrior’ character Korg: his New Zealand twang delivering just side-splitting dialogue.
Hela (Cate Blanchett)
Hela may be a super-villain, but she still hasn’t learned to hold a hammer by the right end.
As with most Marvel films, its a little bit flabby in places, running to 130 minutes: some of the dialogue, particularly scenes between Hemsworth and Ruffalo, feel like they needed tightening up in the editing suite. This time of course includes the scrolling of endless teams of visual effect artists in the closing titles which – naturally – 90% of the audience stay for to see if there are any “monkeys“. In fact,there are two: one fairly early on; the other right at the end. (To be honest, I thought neither of them was particularly worth waiting for).
However overall the movie is highly recommended for a fun night out at the cinema.
Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been travelling the universe in search of… stuff… (I neither remember nor care)… but returns to his home planet of Asgard with a dire warning of impending ‘Raganrok’: this being the ‘End of Days’ for Asgard. But he finds the court engaged in serious leisure time!
ragnarok4
“Shave and a hair cut… two stripes”
Things go from bad to worse when Hela (Cate Blanchett, “Carol“) – someone with more than a passing relationship to Thor – arrives with a mission to assume the throne. Teamed uncomfortably with half-brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston, “High Rise”), the brothers get cast millions of light years away to a planet lorded over by a ‘grand master’ (a lovely performance, that I will leave anonymous here) who pits new gladiators in an arena against his latest champion. You’ll never guess who his champion is? Well, OK (cos the trailer gives it away)… he’s big and green!
ragnarok2
The grand master’s champion. Opponents are green with envy.
The film’s script is hilarious. It generates an enormous volume of entertainment with laugh-out loud moments throughout; the unforseen involvement of other Marvel characters; some startling cameos all mixed with the usual brand of spectacular fights and action. Some of the action is surprising: a real eye-opener you might say.
ragnarok3
Tessa Thompson as the Valkyrie in full flight.
The lead cast (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Blanchett and Ruffalo) all perform admirably and are joined by heavyweight cameos from Anthony Hopkins (“Westworld”) and Idris Elba (“Bastille Day“) reprising their roles from “Thor: The Dark World”. Particularly impressive is Tessa Thompson (“Creed“) as Thor’s Valkyrie warrior side-kick and Karl Urban (“Star Trek: Into Darkness“) as the turn-coat Asgardian Skurge.
ragnarok5
The real McCoy. Karl Urban as the Skurge of Asgard.
Directed by young New Zealander Taika Waititi (behind last year’s successful indie hit “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”) it’s a breath of fresh air for the Thor franchise, more similar to the style of “Guardians of the Galaxy” rather than the previous films in the series. Waititi also saves all the best comedy lines for himself as the ‘rock warrior’ character Korg: his New Zealand twang delivering just side-splitting dialogue.
Hela (Cate Blanchett)
Hela may be a super-villain, but she still hasn’t learned to hold a hammer by the right end.
As with most Marvel films, its a little bit flabby in places, running to 130 minutes: some of the dialogue, particularly scenes between Hemsworth and Ruffalo, feel like they needed tightening up in the editing suite. This time of course includes the scrolling of endless teams of visual effect artists in the closing titles which – naturally – 90% of the audience stay for to see if there are any “monkeys“. In fact,there are two: one fairly early on; the other right at the end. (To be honest, I thought neither of them was particularly worth waiting for).
However overall the movie is highly recommended for a fun night out at the cinema.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Eternal Rider (Lords of Deliverance, #1, Demonica, #6) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I loved that this book took a concept that I am very familiar with, the Four Horsemen from Revelation, and turned it on its head. For all of the repetitiveness of fantasy fiction using the same species over and over again - from mermaids to vampires - the horsemen are definitely new vehicles for enticing literature.
The background of the story is that all of the horsemen once lead human lives, but were cursed to become the horsemen after reacting very badly to the news that Lilith is their mother. Another interesting quirk on the common tale is that one of them is actually female, Limos. The four are destined to either fulfill the Biblical prophecy or the demonic equivalent - which none of them want to do. In addition, each of them have a unique method by which they fall into the demonic prophecy's designated role and must fight to keep said method from playing out.
Ares, whom the story says the Greek god of war is named for, is destined to become War should the being bearing his seal, or agimortus, dies. Thanks to Cara, a human, inadvertently crossing paths with a hellhound, she becomes the bearer of the agimortus. Luckily, she has a few tricks of her own to aid her in her new role. I liked Cara and the way she seemed to blossom despite her captivity and impending death, as well as how easily she could stand up to Ares. I would have liked a little more character development, as it did not feel like her character arc was complete.
Ares is also an interesting character. Even though he is drawn to wars and violence, with his very presence inciting violence and rage among humans, Cara is immune to this ability. Because of how her presence weakens him, Ares shows a vulnerability characteristic of the humanity he left behind thousands of years ago. Around Cara, he is simply a normal guy falling in love, and the way he attempts to "macho-up" to deal with it is positively adorable.
The violence in the book is both believable and quite gritty. Of course, the horsemen's supernatural abilities of strength and healing allow it to be especially intense and dramatic. The sexual scenes in the book are also quite graphic and detailed, without feeling cheesy or awkward.
The laws built into Ione's world of horsemen, angels, and demons is complex without being confusing. The reader is introduced to its structure piece by piece throughout the novel without being bombarded by the details, and all of the pieces fit together nicely. In addition, Ione even includes a glossary at the beginning of the book to help the reader become more accustomed to the world.
The other siblings are all unique and show lots of promise for future books in the series. Thanatos, destined to become Death, has a seductive air of mystery that had me wondering several times throughout the book if something would occur between him and Cara. The sister, Limos, destined to be Famine, also shows many interesting characteristics, such as a certain hidden madness that she struggles to keep leashed, and the chemistry she shares with Arik is palpable. Even though Reseph becomes Pestilence early in the book, I have a feeling he may prove to be the most interesting of the siblings under a theme of redemption. I only have to wait till December for Immortal Rider (Lords of Deliverance), which centers on Limos, to find out what happens next!
The background of the story is that all of the horsemen once lead human lives, but were cursed to become the horsemen after reacting very badly to the news that Lilith is their mother. Another interesting quirk on the common tale is that one of them is actually female, Limos. The four are destined to either fulfill the Biblical prophecy or the demonic equivalent - which none of them want to do. In addition, each of them have a unique method by which they fall into the demonic prophecy's designated role and must fight to keep said method from playing out.
Ares, whom the story says the Greek god of war is named for, is destined to become War should the being bearing his seal, or agimortus, dies. Thanks to Cara, a human, inadvertently crossing paths with a hellhound, she becomes the bearer of the agimortus. Luckily, she has a few tricks of her own to aid her in her new role. I liked Cara and the way she seemed to blossom despite her captivity and impending death, as well as how easily she could stand up to Ares. I would have liked a little more character development, as it did not feel like her character arc was complete.
Ares is also an interesting character. Even though he is drawn to wars and violence, with his very presence inciting violence and rage among humans, Cara is immune to this ability. Because of how her presence weakens him, Ares shows a vulnerability characteristic of the humanity he left behind thousands of years ago. Around Cara, he is simply a normal guy falling in love, and the way he attempts to "macho-up" to deal with it is positively adorable.
The violence in the book is both believable and quite gritty. Of course, the horsemen's supernatural abilities of strength and healing allow it to be especially intense and dramatic. The sexual scenes in the book are also quite graphic and detailed, without feeling cheesy or awkward.
The laws built into Ione's world of horsemen, angels, and demons is complex without being confusing. The reader is introduced to its structure piece by piece throughout the novel without being bombarded by the details, and all of the pieces fit together nicely. In addition, Ione even includes a glossary at the beginning of the book to help the reader become more accustomed to the world.
The other siblings are all unique and show lots of promise for future books in the series. Thanatos, destined to become Death, has a seductive air of mystery that had me wondering several times throughout the book if something would occur between him and Cara. The sister, Limos, destined to be Famine, also shows many interesting characteristics, such as a certain hidden madness that she struggles to keep leashed, and the chemistry she shares with Arik is palpable. Even though Reseph becomes Pestilence early in the book, I have a feeling he may prove to be the most interesting of the siblings under a theme of redemption. I only have to wait till December for Immortal Rider (Lords of Deliverance), which centers on Limos, to find out what happens next!
Darren (1599 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All the Money in the World starts when John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer) get kidnapped in Rome, the ransom is $17 Million, the only person that can help her mother Gail Harris (Williams) get the money is the estranged billionaire grandfather J Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) who isn’t willing to pay a single dollar to get his favourite grandson back.
Fletcher Chase (Wahlberg) is recruited to negotiate a deal with the kidnappers, but Getty isn’t willing to spare a dollar to get him back as the situation starts to get out of hand as time starts to run out on getting John Paul Getty III back alive.
REPORT THIS AD
Thoughts on All the Money in the World
Characters – Gail Harris is the mother of John Paul Getty III, she has given up her fortune she could have had from her divorce to keep her son, she must go back to her old father in law to get the money, even after she doesn’t get the money she leads the campaign to save her son. J Paul Getty is the richest man in the world, he has made the money by taking whatever he wants and will never give up money for anything that doesn’t increase his value. Businessman at heart he will only do a deal for his own good. Fletcher Chase is the deal maker, he has been able to negotiate deals for Getty for years and now he is assigned to help retrieve the grandson.
Performances – Michelle Williams is the true star of this movie, she shines in every scene she is in, showing the strength on front of the cameras and the weakness behind them. Christopher Plummer is great in his role which was one that we get to see him take very late in the process. Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good in his role, taking a supporting position he handles everything without becoming over the top like you would imagine him doing.
Story – The story here follows the kidnapping of the grandchild of the richest man in the world and follows whether he is willing to spend his fortune to get him back alive. We have the concerned mother that will do anything to get him back, even go against the father-in-law. While the story does come off slow at times as we do go through the same process too often, but it does show how greed can drive people to make terrible decisions.
Biopic/Crime/Mystery – This is meant to be about a real person, not sure how real the story is truly about, this could be considered one of the biggest kidnapping cases of all time if is real though.
Settings – The film does use the backdrops wonderfully through the film to make us feel like we are part of the scenes we are watching through, the beauty stands out here.
Scene of the Movie – Williams performance is something to sit and enjoy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel long.
Final Thoughts – This is a good crime thriller, it shows us just how far people will go for money and how far people will go to keep it.
Overall: Long strong movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/04/23/all-the-money-in-the-world-2017/
Fletcher Chase (Wahlberg) is recruited to negotiate a deal with the kidnappers, but Getty isn’t willing to spare a dollar to get him back as the situation starts to get out of hand as time starts to run out on getting John Paul Getty III back alive.
REPORT THIS AD
Thoughts on All the Money in the World
Characters – Gail Harris is the mother of John Paul Getty III, she has given up her fortune she could have had from her divorce to keep her son, she must go back to her old father in law to get the money, even after she doesn’t get the money she leads the campaign to save her son. J Paul Getty is the richest man in the world, he has made the money by taking whatever he wants and will never give up money for anything that doesn’t increase his value. Businessman at heart he will only do a deal for his own good. Fletcher Chase is the deal maker, he has been able to negotiate deals for Getty for years and now he is assigned to help retrieve the grandson.
Performances – Michelle Williams is the true star of this movie, she shines in every scene she is in, showing the strength on front of the cameras and the weakness behind them. Christopher Plummer is great in his role which was one that we get to see him take very late in the process. Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good in his role, taking a supporting position he handles everything without becoming over the top like you would imagine him doing.
Story – The story here follows the kidnapping of the grandchild of the richest man in the world and follows whether he is willing to spend his fortune to get him back alive. We have the concerned mother that will do anything to get him back, even go against the father-in-law. While the story does come off slow at times as we do go through the same process too often, but it does show how greed can drive people to make terrible decisions.
Biopic/Crime/Mystery – This is meant to be about a real person, not sure how real the story is truly about, this could be considered one of the biggest kidnapping cases of all time if is real though.
Settings – The film does use the backdrops wonderfully through the film to make us feel like we are part of the scenes we are watching through, the beauty stands out here.
Scene of the Movie – Williams performance is something to sit and enjoy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel long.
Final Thoughts – This is a good crime thriller, it shows us just how far people will go for money and how far people will go to keep it.
Overall: Long strong movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/04/23/all-the-money-in-the-world-2017/
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
Where Is Rowan Morrison?
Trying to get into the "horror mood" this year I thought I would revisit a "cult classic" which I hadn't seen in 20+ years and it is still as haunting as I remember.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.
Take It Easy
Games and Entertainment
App
It’s a puzzle, it’s a brain teaser and it’s a game! It’s all three and much more! It is...
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Favorite Sister in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Goal Diggers is a reality TV show based on women entrepreneurs. These women have made their own way in life without the help of a man. The story centers around two characters on the show, Brett and Stephanie. Brett is the lesbian who doesn't care about what others things about her, with the bike riding studio who donates proceeds from her studios to women in Morocco who have to walk miles for water. They use the money to purchase bikes for these women. Stephanie is just the opposite refusing to film without a full face of makeup and she has written a few novels and now is on tour for her first "memoir". The other 2 characters on the show are Jen and Lauren, who don't really get along with the rest of the cast, and joining them this season is Kelly, Brett's older sister. Is reality TV really real? Are what is going on in these women's lives really happening or is it played up for the audience. This book takes us from Pre-Production on the show to Post-Production for one of the most explosive seasons. Are you ready for the ride?
Thank you to NetGalley and Simon & Schuster for the opportunity to read and review this book.
Getting into this book was hard. It took me 10 days to read it and I thought I would get through it pretty quickly. I love the Real Housewives series with my favorites being Atlanta, and Beverly Hills and this book I thought was going to be like taking a behind the scenes look at a show like that. It was, but for me it fell a little short.
The book starts with Kelly talking about Brett's death. But we have to go through the whole season of filming to see how that all plays out. Each woman has a secret to keep with one being bigger and juicier than the next. So from the start I was intrigued and I had to find out how Brett died, but it just took so long to get there. Back stories and front stories, and Interviews and lies. It's all a complete mess. The best part of the book for me was the last 10%.
Do you watch Reality TV? My husband calls it mind polluting. But he watches a couple of them with me. I've always wanted to know if the show was scripted and if these women were all either enemies or best friends when the cameras go off. You get a glimpse of that in this book. They take us through an entire filming season before the audience gets to see what happens. Producers sending texts to cast members before they are going to meet up with certain people to remind them of last filmed conversations? I need to ask Andy Cohen if that really happens. But with so much drama going on, whose lies do you believe?
Thank you to NetGalley and Simon & Schuster for the opportunity to read and review this book.
Getting into this book was hard. It took me 10 days to read it and I thought I would get through it pretty quickly. I love the Real Housewives series with my favorites being Atlanta, and Beverly Hills and this book I thought was going to be like taking a behind the scenes look at a show like that. It was, but for me it fell a little short.
The book starts with Kelly talking about Brett's death. But we have to go through the whole season of filming to see how that all plays out. Each woman has a secret to keep with one being bigger and juicier than the next. So from the start I was intrigued and I had to find out how Brett died, but it just took so long to get there. Back stories and front stories, and Interviews and lies. It's all a complete mess. The best part of the book for me was the last 10%.
Do you watch Reality TV? My husband calls it mind polluting. But he watches a couple of them with me. I've always wanted to know if the show was scripted and if these women were all either enemies or best friends when the cameras go off. You get a glimpse of that in this book. They take us through an entire filming season before the audience gets to see what happens. Producers sending texts to cast members before they are going to meet up with certain people to remind them of last filmed conversations? I need to ask Andy Cohen if that really happens. But with so much drama going on, whose lies do you believe?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tower Heist (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the movie Tower Heist, the employees of The Tower, a ritzy high-rise condominium in New York City, fall victim to a Ponzi scheme and lose their 401(k). Now normally there wouldn’t be anything they could do about it but Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), the one behind the Ponzi scheme, is one of the residents at The Tower.
Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), former general anager of The Tower, has an idea to steal the defrauded employees’ money back, but he needs help with his grand scheme. Josh brings in his brother-in-law Cole Howard (Casey Affleck) and Rick Malloy (Michael Pena). Both are former employees and as such have a score to settle. Josh also enlists the help of Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe) who is currently a maid at the Tower and Chase Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), a former resident.
While eager to do what they believe is right, the group does not have a background in crime, so Josh brings in Slide (Eddie Murphy), a thief from his neighborhood that he has known since childhood. Will this band of merry men and woman be successful and save the day Robin Hood-style or will they run afoul of FBI Agent Claire Denham (Tea Leoni)?
The film has a very entertaining story that unfolds beautifully and a better cast would be impossible to find. Now with that said, there were some parts in the movie that were distracting to me because I could not suspend my disbelief that far, however, I can’t say what they are due to the fact that I do not want to spoil any scenes for you.
Eddie Murphy did an amazing job of keeping his character realistic and at the same time unbelievably funny. Without a doubt every scene Murphy is in is golden. Not only did Alan Alda’s character get arrested for stealing people’s money but he almost stole the show. And even though every fiber of my being wanted to dislike his character, who is an arrogant, self-righteous, demeaning jerk; Alda portrayed him in such a way that I was actually sort of hoping that the character would get away with it. Now I know all you Benheads out there are asking “What about Ben Stiller?” You all will be happy to know that he was great, he was definitely the humorous glue that held the movie together. Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena and Casey Affleck were all very entertaining though at times Casey gets drowned out by the others. Last but certainly not least Gabourey Sidibe and Tea Leoni were both great and incredibly funny however they did not get anywhere near as much screen time as I would have liked.
Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), former general anager of The Tower, has an idea to steal the defrauded employees’ money back, but he needs help with his grand scheme. Josh brings in his brother-in-law Cole Howard (Casey Affleck) and Rick Malloy (Michael Pena). Both are former employees and as such have a score to settle. Josh also enlists the help of Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe) who is currently a maid at the Tower and Chase Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), a former resident.
While eager to do what they believe is right, the group does not have a background in crime, so Josh brings in Slide (Eddie Murphy), a thief from his neighborhood that he has known since childhood. Will this band of merry men and woman be successful and save the day Robin Hood-style or will they run afoul of FBI Agent Claire Denham (Tea Leoni)?
The film has a very entertaining story that unfolds beautifully and a better cast would be impossible to find. Now with that said, there were some parts in the movie that were distracting to me because I could not suspend my disbelief that far, however, I can’t say what they are due to the fact that I do not want to spoil any scenes for you.
Eddie Murphy did an amazing job of keeping his character realistic and at the same time unbelievably funny. Without a doubt every scene Murphy is in is golden. Not only did Alan Alda’s character get arrested for stealing people’s money but he almost stole the show. And even though every fiber of my being wanted to dislike his character, who is an arrogant, self-righteous, demeaning jerk; Alda portrayed him in such a way that I was actually sort of hoping that the character would get away with it. Now I know all you Benheads out there are asking “What about Ben Stiller?” You all will be happy to know that he was great, he was definitely the humorous glue that held the movie together. Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena and Casey Affleck were all very entertaining though at times Casey gets drowned out by the others. Last but certainly not least Gabourey Sidibe and Tea Leoni were both great and incredibly funny however they did not get anywhere near as much screen time as I would have liked.
Miss Hollywood: Lights, Camera, Fashion! - Pet Fun
Entertainment and Games
App
Play mini games with Miss Hollywood and her pet friends and become a superstar! Budge Studios™...