Search
Search results
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.
My Kind of Food: Recipes I Love to Cook at Home
Book
My Kind of Food is a very personal book from John Torode, full of the food that he loves to cook and...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Romanov in Books
Oct 5, 2020
From the author of Fawkes comes a magical take on the story of Anastasia Romanov.
The history books say I died.
They don’t know the half of it.
Ever since I read Fawkes, I knew I loved Nadine’s writing, and when Romanov was announced, I couldn’t be happier. As I have spend my childhood and young adult life in the Balkans, whilst travelling across Europe, I have always admired Russia, and always enjoyed reading all the theories about the Romanov family.
As a child I would be told stories and fairy tales, I would watch the Disney adaptation of Anastasia, and as I was growing up, I would read history books and fiction on this very subject. When I got my hands on ‘’Romanov’’, I knew I would be up for an adventure, with lots of expectations, but what I never knew was that I would be blown away of how beautiful this book is!
This book is split into two main parts, before and after the Romanov’s execution, but it is also split into the first being the historical part, and the second being the fictional part. Both parts of the book are quite intense, and very different emotions come up to surface, but they are both very powerful throughout, and fitted together quite well.
In the first part, we are introduced to the Romanov family, and how they are kept as hostages by the Bolsheviks. It would’ve been much better if we had more details on the pre-hostage period, why the revolution began, why the king abducted the throne, who are the Bolsheviks and what they believed in. The book starts in the middle of this whole situation, and whilst I knew the beginning before, I am certain a lot of people wouldn’t have.
The history, as much accurate as it was, also had a personalized feeling that the author wanted to give. I have to admit, a lot of the details, especially around the family were quite accurate. The family did stick together and loved each other, they did have secrets and they did make friends with their captors. Anastasia’s brother did indeed had hemophilia and Rasputin was allegedly helping him. However, the author decided to put her personal feelings into the history as well. The king is presented as a wonderful leader that cares about the people. I understand that we see this story from Anastasia’s point of view, and as his daughter, she is supposed to see her father as the best figure in the world. But I still believe this part should be more objective, if not from Anastasia’s point of view, then at least by the king’s actions and dialogues. The other big element that bothered me was the portrayal of Rasputin. He is shown in this book as a family helper and a kind man, when in fact, he was far from that. In the history books, he is described as a madman, a creepy person, and the king was not happy of him coming in the house. The family’s secrecy and the queen’s silent domination over the king, together with Rasputin’s doings were the start of the revolution, and I believe that it one of the required truths that this books should have included, but didn’t. And that troubled me.
On top of this, is the Russian language used throughout this book. There were a lot of spelling errors, and misinterpretations. And whilst I can understand these words, many people can’t, and translation wasn’t provided in the book. Also, I really found this quote interesting, talking about the Russian culture, and how they don’t show emotions. Just a note – this is most of the time true, people won’t be nice to strangers, but actually, Russian people are quite friendly and emotional as well.
‘’We Russians weren’t required to share any amount of emotion we didn’t want to.’’
Apart from these few things that slightly bothered me, I really enjoyed this book. Anastasia is an amazing character, and through her we can see her love towards her family, her country, and even towards the people that wish her harm. We get to see her love, cry, be hurt, be afraid, forgive, and grow throughout the book, and her journey was magical.
‘’As I lay in the grass next to the spell that could rid me of heart pain, I realized that a part of forgiveness was accepting the things someone had done – and the pain that came with that – and moving on with love. Forgiveness was a personal battle that must always be fought in my heart.’’
I loved the beginning of the book the most. The setting was well-written, and I got the feel the same way as the Romanov family did. They tried to act as if everything was normal, when in fact, they were held captive, and moved out of their home. They weren’t allowed to go out in the garden often, and when they did have this opportunity, they enjoyed every single second of it. And they all had hope every single day. They kept smiling and stayed together.
There are number of scenes that will always stay close to my heart – the relationship between Zash and Anastasia (as unrealistic as it might be), always kept me on my toes, his desperation, and his guilt, and her ability to forgive and love regardless.
The brother’s illness, and his persistence through it. His motivation and his will to never give up. The love he holds for his family, and especially his sister Anastasia, and the toughness and not letting go. A few scenes were unrealistic with him, as I hardly believe anyone suffering from hemophilia can survive all those injuries mentioned in the book and the pools of blood, but above all – this character did achieve what he was meant to do – show hope where there is none.
A wonderful and magical tale, with a history behind it of a mysterious family, especially their end – this book brought tears on my eyes and made me think about the power of forgiveness and love. A true masterpiece.
Thank you to Nadine Brandes, for letting me be a part of her Ninja Team.
The history books say I died.
They don’t know the half of it.
Ever since I read Fawkes, I knew I loved Nadine’s writing, and when Romanov was announced, I couldn’t be happier. As I have spend my childhood and young adult life in the Balkans, whilst travelling across Europe, I have always admired Russia, and always enjoyed reading all the theories about the Romanov family.
As a child I would be told stories and fairy tales, I would watch the Disney adaptation of Anastasia, and as I was growing up, I would read history books and fiction on this very subject. When I got my hands on ‘’Romanov’’, I knew I would be up for an adventure, with lots of expectations, but what I never knew was that I would be blown away of how beautiful this book is!
This book is split into two main parts, before and after the Romanov’s execution, but it is also split into the first being the historical part, and the second being the fictional part. Both parts of the book are quite intense, and very different emotions come up to surface, but they are both very powerful throughout, and fitted together quite well.
In the first part, we are introduced to the Romanov family, and how they are kept as hostages by the Bolsheviks. It would’ve been much better if we had more details on the pre-hostage period, why the revolution began, why the king abducted the throne, who are the Bolsheviks and what they believed in. The book starts in the middle of this whole situation, and whilst I knew the beginning before, I am certain a lot of people wouldn’t have.
The history, as much accurate as it was, also had a personalized feeling that the author wanted to give. I have to admit, a lot of the details, especially around the family were quite accurate. The family did stick together and loved each other, they did have secrets and they did make friends with their captors. Anastasia’s brother did indeed had hemophilia and Rasputin was allegedly helping him. However, the author decided to put her personal feelings into the history as well. The king is presented as a wonderful leader that cares about the people. I understand that we see this story from Anastasia’s point of view, and as his daughter, she is supposed to see her father as the best figure in the world. But I still believe this part should be more objective, if not from Anastasia’s point of view, then at least by the king’s actions and dialogues. The other big element that bothered me was the portrayal of Rasputin. He is shown in this book as a family helper and a kind man, when in fact, he was far from that. In the history books, he is described as a madman, a creepy person, and the king was not happy of him coming in the house. The family’s secrecy and the queen’s silent domination over the king, together with Rasputin’s doings were the start of the revolution, and I believe that it one of the required truths that this books should have included, but didn’t. And that troubled me.
On top of this, is the Russian language used throughout this book. There were a lot of spelling errors, and misinterpretations. And whilst I can understand these words, many people can’t, and translation wasn’t provided in the book. Also, I really found this quote interesting, talking about the Russian culture, and how they don’t show emotions. Just a note – this is most of the time true, people won’t be nice to strangers, but actually, Russian people are quite friendly and emotional as well.
‘’We Russians weren’t required to share any amount of emotion we didn’t want to.’’
Apart from these few things that slightly bothered me, I really enjoyed this book. Anastasia is an amazing character, and through her we can see her love towards her family, her country, and even towards the people that wish her harm. We get to see her love, cry, be hurt, be afraid, forgive, and grow throughout the book, and her journey was magical.
‘’As I lay in the grass next to the spell that could rid me of heart pain, I realized that a part of forgiveness was accepting the things someone had done – and the pain that came with that – and moving on with love. Forgiveness was a personal battle that must always be fought in my heart.’’
I loved the beginning of the book the most. The setting was well-written, and I got the feel the same way as the Romanov family did. They tried to act as if everything was normal, when in fact, they were held captive, and moved out of their home. They weren’t allowed to go out in the garden often, and when they did have this opportunity, they enjoyed every single second of it. And they all had hope every single day. They kept smiling and stayed together.
There are number of scenes that will always stay close to my heart – the relationship between Zash and Anastasia (as unrealistic as it might be), always kept me on my toes, his desperation, and his guilt, and her ability to forgive and love regardless.
The brother’s illness, and his persistence through it. His motivation and his will to never give up. The love he holds for his family, and especially his sister Anastasia, and the toughness and not letting go. A few scenes were unrealistic with him, as I hardly believe anyone suffering from hemophilia can survive all those injuries mentioned in the book and the pools of blood, but above all – this character did achieve what he was meant to do – show hope where there is none.
A wonderful and magical tale, with a history behind it of a mysterious family, especially their end – this book brought tears on my eyes and made me think about the power of forgiveness and love. A true masterpiece.
Thank you to Nadine Brandes, for letting me be a part of her Ninja Team.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tropic Thunder (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Deep in the jungles of Vietnam, one of the most expensive films in history is underway. The film is based upon a best seller by war hero Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte), and stars three of the biggest stars in Hollywood so naturally expectations are very high for the film to become a box office blockbuster.
Unfortunately the production is troubled by one gaffe after another and finds itself lost in budget over runs, issues amongst the stars, and more drama than a Shakespeare festival.
The film is “Tropical Thunder” and Director and star Ben Stiller has assembled a talented cast that includes Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. in a biting satire of the Hollywood machine.
Stiller stars as Tugg Speedman, a declining action star who sees the war film as his big chance to break away from his recent failures and move into more serious work. Tugg is overshadowed by the presence of multiple Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), who prepares for a part so intensely that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. Toward that end, he has undergone a skin pigment procedure in order to portray an African American soldier.
Rounding out the group, literally, is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), the star of flatulence based film comedy series and a man wracked by addiction to the point that he hides his drugs in a candy package and refers to them as his jelly beans.
After a staggeringly costly and impressive pyrotechnic display by the sets explosive expert Cody (Danny Mc Bride), the film is in danger of being halted by the money behind the film, an intensely angry Producer named Les Grossman (Tom Cruise).
In an effort to keep his film alive and salvage their careers, Four Leaf and the film’s Director decide to drop the cast in the thick of the jungle and shoot the film gorilla style with hidden cameras and various tricks to produce a grittier film and get the cast to start acting like the soldiers they are supposed to be portraying.
In a hilarious turn of events, the cast ends up trapped in the jungle and surrounded by members of the locale drug cartel. Convinced that it is all part of the film, Tugg and company blindly trudge along thinking all is going as scripted until things go hopelessly wrong, and force the cast to come to grips with the situation as well as their fragile egos and personal issues.
While the premise of the film is solid, and there are a good number of laughs in the film, for the most part “Tropic Thunder” is a hit or miss venture.
Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in his portrayal as he constantly steals his scenes with his expressions and one liners and almost single handled carries the film during some of the more tedious moments.
Stiller plays the patented Stiller character once again, the slow witted loser with a heart of gold, and despite his efforts, he is just not given enough material to fully push his character over the top, despite some funny moments.
The biggest disappointment for me was Jack Black who is sadly underused in the film. Jack is a very gifted and talented actor but he is given very little to work with, and precious few moments to let his talents shine. Owen Wilson was originally supposed to be in the film, and at times it seems that this part was written more with Wilson’s more subdued style of humor in mind.
Aside from the laughs, the film does have an abundance of celebrity cameos, and this truly helps the film. Sadly though, the plot really does not do justice to the premise nor talent in the film, and unfolds in a very unspectacular manner that had me expecting more.
This is not to say it is a bad film as I found myself laughing on more than one occasion, sadly it became fewer and father between laughs as the film unfolded to a very disappointing finale.
Unfortunately the production is troubled by one gaffe after another and finds itself lost in budget over runs, issues amongst the stars, and more drama than a Shakespeare festival.
The film is “Tropical Thunder” and Director and star Ben Stiller has assembled a talented cast that includes Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. in a biting satire of the Hollywood machine.
Stiller stars as Tugg Speedman, a declining action star who sees the war film as his big chance to break away from his recent failures and move into more serious work. Tugg is overshadowed by the presence of multiple Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), who prepares for a part so intensely that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. Toward that end, he has undergone a skin pigment procedure in order to portray an African American soldier.
Rounding out the group, literally, is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), the star of flatulence based film comedy series and a man wracked by addiction to the point that he hides his drugs in a candy package and refers to them as his jelly beans.
After a staggeringly costly and impressive pyrotechnic display by the sets explosive expert Cody (Danny Mc Bride), the film is in danger of being halted by the money behind the film, an intensely angry Producer named Les Grossman (Tom Cruise).
In an effort to keep his film alive and salvage their careers, Four Leaf and the film’s Director decide to drop the cast in the thick of the jungle and shoot the film gorilla style with hidden cameras and various tricks to produce a grittier film and get the cast to start acting like the soldiers they are supposed to be portraying.
In a hilarious turn of events, the cast ends up trapped in the jungle and surrounded by members of the locale drug cartel. Convinced that it is all part of the film, Tugg and company blindly trudge along thinking all is going as scripted until things go hopelessly wrong, and force the cast to come to grips with the situation as well as their fragile egos and personal issues.
While the premise of the film is solid, and there are a good number of laughs in the film, for the most part “Tropic Thunder” is a hit or miss venture.
Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in his portrayal as he constantly steals his scenes with his expressions and one liners and almost single handled carries the film during some of the more tedious moments.
Stiller plays the patented Stiller character once again, the slow witted loser with a heart of gold, and despite his efforts, he is just not given enough material to fully push his character over the top, despite some funny moments.
The biggest disappointment for me was Jack Black who is sadly underused in the film. Jack is a very gifted and talented actor but he is given very little to work with, and precious few moments to let his talents shine. Owen Wilson was originally supposed to be in the film, and at times it seems that this part was written more with Wilson’s more subdued style of humor in mind.
Aside from the laughs, the film does have an abundance of celebrity cameos, and this truly helps the film. Sadly though, the plot really does not do justice to the premise nor talent in the film, and unfolds in a very unspectacular manner that had me expecting more.
This is not to say it is a bad film as I found myself laughing on more than one occasion, sadly it became fewer and father between laughs as the film unfolded to a very disappointing finale.
If you got the chance to look into your dead husband’s cold case, would you? Would you really want to know who killed him? Why? Detective Rogers does. Detective Rogers, a retired detective from Reno, had joined a group of cold case solving retired detectives. Finally after 22 years, she wants to know who killed her husband and why. As she and the gang of cold case solving detectives begin to unravel his life and his secrets, she finds herself more and more angry that she didn’t know that much about that man she had married and had a child with. As the story goes on, secrets and lies that he had hidden from her and others close to him begin to shape him into an unpleasant way that makes it hard to swallow for Detective Rogers. With all his secrets and lies, it becomes unreal when they realize it wasn’t his body with his wallet attached to it and who all was behind such a crime.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery by Dean Wesley Smith was a fabulous book. As you follow the retired detectives and try to piece together all the evidence and clues they obtain to solve this case, you can’t help but begin to wonder what the whole story behind the dead ex-husband is. Who was he really and what could cause him to find trouble that would get him killed. In this mystery you get to sink your teeth in such a mystery that you try to figure it out yourself as you read, hoping to beat the detectives to their own results. With the twists and realizations of uncovered secrets and lies, you can’t help to find yourself in the shoes of Detective Rogers as she learns about her dead husband’s life and all this secrets.
Wesley had written the book extremely well with only one minor issue that may go undetected to someone reading it without doing a double take. On page 134 instead of using Detective Julia Rogers name, Detective Lott’s daughter name was used. At first I almost missed it, but as I continued reading the page I realized Annie wasn’t on the phone of even with them at that particular point. This wasn’t a huge flaw, but one I kind of wished was caught before publishing as I had to read the page eight times before realizing it had to be a typo. I totally understand typos happen, but it was just a slight irritation. Wesley was able to write such beautiful if no graphic at time scenes, that it was easy to get lost in the story rather quickly. Adding humor and romance to underlying tones makes it hard not to admire how he could capture the essence some detectives have after many years in service. It was truly amazing to read. I found the mystery truly astounding and enjoyed getting to know the characters and seeing how different eyes can bring knew things to light as well as new questions to be asked.
I really enjoyed how Wesley was able to bring in the interesting things detectives working on cold cases would do or ask and how having links to help gather information and to get to different places can help a cold case make it easier to find clues and solve a case that has little to no information. I have always had an interest in cold cases and found that being walked through how the team of retired detectives solves this case brought so much excitement and interesting things that makes you wonder if you could solve cold cases yourself if you had the money and resources that these detectives have. As you try to figure it out with them you can’t help to make mental notes and develop your own theories and questions that you may wish to have answered or worked through. Wesley easily makes you feel like you could be a detective.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery is the first book in its series and definitely leaves you craving the next one. With all the aspects in view that makes a mystery good, as well as the depth of the characters, you will find yourself wanting to take notes alongside the detectives. This makes it harder to put the book down while you're craving a new cold case to solve. I absolutely loved this book. I rate it 3 stars out of 4 because of the minor error in the text. Other than that, I definitely recommend this book to anyone who is looking to sink their teeth in a murder mystery that had become a cold case and solved 22 years later.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery by Dean Wesley Smith was a fabulous book. As you follow the retired detectives and try to piece together all the evidence and clues they obtain to solve this case, you can’t help but begin to wonder what the whole story behind the dead ex-husband is. Who was he really and what could cause him to find trouble that would get him killed. In this mystery you get to sink your teeth in such a mystery that you try to figure it out yourself as you read, hoping to beat the detectives to their own results. With the twists and realizations of uncovered secrets and lies, you can’t help to find yourself in the shoes of Detective Rogers as she learns about her dead husband’s life and all this secrets.
Wesley had written the book extremely well with only one minor issue that may go undetected to someone reading it without doing a double take. On page 134 instead of using Detective Julia Rogers name, Detective Lott’s daughter name was used. At first I almost missed it, but as I continued reading the page I realized Annie wasn’t on the phone of even with them at that particular point. This wasn’t a huge flaw, but one I kind of wished was caught before publishing as I had to read the page eight times before realizing it had to be a typo. I totally understand typos happen, but it was just a slight irritation. Wesley was able to write such beautiful if no graphic at time scenes, that it was easy to get lost in the story rather quickly. Adding humor and romance to underlying tones makes it hard not to admire how he could capture the essence some detectives have after many years in service. It was truly amazing to read. I found the mystery truly astounding and enjoyed getting to know the characters and seeing how different eyes can bring knew things to light as well as new questions to be asked.
I really enjoyed how Wesley was able to bring in the interesting things detectives working on cold cases would do or ask and how having links to help gather information and to get to different places can help a cold case make it easier to find clues and solve a case that has little to no information. I have always had an interest in cold cases and found that being walked through how the team of retired detectives solves this case brought so much excitement and interesting things that makes you wonder if you could solve cold cases yourself if you had the money and resources that these detectives have. As you try to figure it out with them you can’t help to make mental notes and develop your own theories and questions that you may wish to have answered or worked through. Wesley easily makes you feel like you could be a detective.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery is the first book in its series and definitely leaves you craving the next one. With all the aspects in view that makes a mystery good, as well as the depth of the characters, you will find yourself wanting to take notes alongside the detectives. This makes it harder to put the book down while you're craving a new cold case to solve. I absolutely loved this book. I rate it 3 stars out of 4 because of the minor error in the text. Other than that, I definitely recommend this book to anyone who is looking to sink their teeth in a murder mystery that had become a cold case and solved 22 years later.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Spy Who Dumped Me (2018) in Movies
Aug 21, 2018
Not enough comedy (1 more)
Drags on way too long
More action spy movie than comedy
In recent years, whenever I go to watch a comedy at the cinema, I come away totally disappointed, and end up going off on a rant about the state of movie comedies these days when I review them afterwards. Mostly, these movies have a very simple plot premise, which they then just try and plaster over with a tonne of gross out scenes or poorly written 'comedy' set-pieces. Other times they feature a bit more story and plot, with the humour being more of an add-on. The Spy Who Dumped Me veers more towards the latter, ending up as more of an above average action spy movie than a comedy.
Mila Kunis is Audrey, celebrating her birthday in a bar. Only her celebrations have been ruined somewhat by the fact that her boyfriend Drew (Justin Theroux) recently dumped her. By text! She's with best friend Morgan (Kate McKinnon), and as they complain about Drew, we see that he's in a spot of bother of his own over in Europe - taking out bad guys in a market shootout, getting chased through somebody's apartment while the owners watch TV, jumping out of a window onto a truck, and casually strolling out of a building as it explodes behind him. But when Audrey sends him yet another text, this time threatening to burn all of his stuff, Drew quickly gets in touch with her. Turns out that a small trophy in among his little box of dirty undies and other possessions is the key to saving a lot of people, and the bad guys want to get their hands on it at all costs. So, Audrey and Morgan unwittingly become involved in the world of spies and villains, traveling around Europe and bumbling their way through all manner of problems to ensure that the trophy finds its way into the right hands.
As mentioned earlier, every effort has been made to make sure that this is a high action spy movie along the lines of the Bourne and Mission Impossible movies. The aforementioned escape from the bad guys, a huge restaurant shootout, a deadly villain, a high speed street chase involving cars, motorbikes and guns, not to mention almost as much double crossing/who can you trust shenanigans than MI: Fallout recently, are all present and presented really well. All the while, Audrey and Morgan bring lighthearted relief and humour to it all. Kunis and McKinnon doing exactly what we're used to from their separate movie comedies but coming together here as a really likeable team and with a good supporting cast too.
Overall, The Spy Who Dumped Me isn't too bad, but it isn't too great either. It also seemed to drag on way too much for my liking and I would have preferred a much tighter movie, with a few more laughs. Still fairly enjoyable though.
Mila Kunis is Audrey, celebrating her birthday in a bar. Only her celebrations have been ruined somewhat by the fact that her boyfriend Drew (Justin Theroux) recently dumped her. By text! She's with best friend Morgan (Kate McKinnon), and as they complain about Drew, we see that he's in a spot of bother of his own over in Europe - taking out bad guys in a market shootout, getting chased through somebody's apartment while the owners watch TV, jumping out of a window onto a truck, and casually strolling out of a building as it explodes behind him. But when Audrey sends him yet another text, this time threatening to burn all of his stuff, Drew quickly gets in touch with her. Turns out that a small trophy in among his little box of dirty undies and other possessions is the key to saving a lot of people, and the bad guys want to get their hands on it at all costs. So, Audrey and Morgan unwittingly become involved in the world of spies and villains, traveling around Europe and bumbling their way through all manner of problems to ensure that the trophy finds its way into the right hands.
As mentioned earlier, every effort has been made to make sure that this is a high action spy movie along the lines of the Bourne and Mission Impossible movies. The aforementioned escape from the bad guys, a huge restaurant shootout, a deadly villain, a high speed street chase involving cars, motorbikes and guns, not to mention almost as much double crossing/who can you trust shenanigans than MI: Fallout recently, are all present and presented really well. All the while, Audrey and Morgan bring lighthearted relief and humour to it all. Kunis and McKinnon doing exactly what we're used to from their separate movie comedies but coming together here as a really likeable team and with a good supporting cast too.
Overall, The Spy Who Dumped Me isn't too bad, but it isn't too great either. It also seemed to drag on way too much for my liking and I would have preferred a much tighter movie, with a few more laughs. Still fairly enjoyable though.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Finest Hours (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The Finest Hours tells the story of four men who, in February of 1952, undertook one of the most daring rescue attempts in the history of the Unites States Coast Guard. A tanker, the SS Pendleton, is caught in a storm off the coast of New England and is ripped in half, leaving more than 30 sailors adrift and sinking. While Bernard Webber (Chris Pine) leads an impossible rescue in a lifeboat designed to hold only 12, his fiancée, Miriam (Holliday Grainger), struggles to come to terms with what it means to be the wife of a man who has to willingly risk his life for others.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.