Search
Search results
Nicholas Stoller recommended Rushmore (1998) in Movies (curated)
Curtis Sittenfeld's engaging novel looks at Hillary Rodham's life through this prism: what if she hadn't married Bill Clinton? In 1971, as Hillary Rodham graduates from Wellesley, she delivers a commencement speech that gains national prominence. She heads to Yale Law school--an intelligent woman, filled with the desire to help those in need. It is there she meets Bill Clinton, a fellow law student. The connection between the two is instant--for the first time, Hillary feels she has found someone who appreciates her both emotionally and physically. In real life, Hillary and Bill head to Arkansas. He proposes three times, and she finally accepts, becoming Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hope Gap (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
When picking things to watch at the London Film Festival the criteria was simple... read the synopsis and choose from that. If I got bogged down in anything more I was going to miss things that could have been "hidden gems", my list would also have been never-ending... but when you spot Annette Bening and Bill Nighy in a film together you can't say no really.
Edward and Grace have been married for 29 years but the humdrum living has become too monotonous, for Edward at least. He's felt like his life needs something different for a while, knowing that Grace will react badly he invites their son to aid in his plan to leave, but he too is in the dark about what on the cards for his visit.
I was keen to enjoy this one but I think sadly the film doesn't hit all the right notes. The set up of Edward (Nighy) and Grace (Bening) in the house together perfectly reflects their relationship. Everything is together and yet they're separate. They work in different rooms, their backs to each other and while they acknowledge each other and interact it's more habit than anything else.
I'm not the best at picking up subtle things when watching films the first time around, but I noted down a couple of times that there seemed to be a lot of colour coordination. Both main characters seemed to match with parts of the house and yet those colours never seemed to cross together at any time... one of the perils od not being able to rewind a film to check is that I'm left wondering if I actually saw something or not. Perhaps I imagined it! The similarities also extended to their son Jamie and his room... according to my unverifiable notes.
I thought that Josh O'Connor and Bill Nighy had a great dynamic together, their characters share many "inherited" traits together and that played out well on screen. Annette Bening's performance was strong at times and you could definitely see the progression clearly in Grace... but...
With those good touches came a lethargic pace. The laid back sense of the whole film with just Grace as the energetic feature was a struggle to watch. I can see that it could be exactly how it would happen in reality but that doesn't mean it will work on film when you aren't invested in the parties involved.
Hope Gap touches on some strong points but never seems to address them very directly. I'm not sure I can see another way that this would have jumped off the screen, in my head it feels more suited for the intimate setting of a theatre.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/hope-gap-movie-review.html
Edward and Grace have been married for 29 years but the humdrum living has become too monotonous, for Edward at least. He's felt like his life needs something different for a while, knowing that Grace will react badly he invites their son to aid in his plan to leave, but he too is in the dark about what on the cards for his visit.
I was keen to enjoy this one but I think sadly the film doesn't hit all the right notes. The set up of Edward (Nighy) and Grace (Bening) in the house together perfectly reflects their relationship. Everything is together and yet they're separate. They work in different rooms, their backs to each other and while they acknowledge each other and interact it's more habit than anything else.
I'm not the best at picking up subtle things when watching films the first time around, but I noted down a couple of times that there seemed to be a lot of colour coordination. Both main characters seemed to match with parts of the house and yet those colours never seemed to cross together at any time... one of the perils od not being able to rewind a film to check is that I'm left wondering if I actually saw something or not. Perhaps I imagined it! The similarities also extended to their son Jamie and his room... according to my unverifiable notes.
I thought that Josh O'Connor and Bill Nighy had a great dynamic together, their characters share many "inherited" traits together and that played out well on screen. Annette Bening's performance was strong at times and you could definitely see the progression clearly in Grace... but...
With those good touches came a lethargic pace. The laid back sense of the whole film with just Grace as the energetic feature was a struggle to watch. I can see that it could be exactly how it would happen in reality but that doesn't mean it will work on film when you aren't invested in the parties involved.
Hope Gap touches on some strong points but never seems to address them very directly. I'm not sure I can see another way that this would have jumped off the screen, in my head it feels more suited for the intimate setting of a theatre.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/hope-gap-movie-review.html
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated It in Books
May 16, 2018
As seen first on <a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com/"; target="_new"><i>The Ghastly Grimoire</i></a>.
If you're looking for an absolute tome of horror to read, It by Stephen King definitely fits that bill. I still prefer The Stand over this book, though. Wrought with the horrific trials visited upon children in the town of Derry, Maine, readers learn to love and loathe an extremely wide range of characters. While much of this book is entertaining, there are a few things I simply cannot condone.
There's a few scenes in here that are sexually graphic. This isn't uncommon in the horror market, and normally doesn't bother me. Only, I made the mistake of laughing off one of my ex's remarks regarding pre-pubescent intercourse and circle-jerking. I'm throwing that out there, in case it's something my readers wish to steer clear of. Not only that, but... Let's just say I prefer the movie's approach to Bev not being afraid, to the actual... what happened in the book, and we'll leave it at that. I cannot stomach some of the scenes of this book, not because they are terrifying, but because they are downright wrong, disgusting, and rather unnecessary.
That rant aside, this massive tome tells two stories alongside one another: the past and present battles with Pennywise the Dancing Clown mingle and cross between one another and, perhaps because I was listening to the audiobook (a whopping 45 hour track, if we're rounding), this made it difficult for me to keep the two straight. In fact, I had to rewind now and then to make sure I was hearing things properly (i.e. aforementioned rant). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: alternating time periods in this manner between the same characters in a story is maddeningly distracting for me.
King's character depth will always astound me. He makes even the briefest characters of his books memorable, giving them a backstory that is fully developed. There are several times he managed to goad emotions out of me that I didn't want to feel, and I love that. Ben Hanscom is by far my favorite, perhaps because in many ways, we share similar childhoods. Parents that care, the bullies, the blossoming from pre-pubescent torture - though the entire Loser's Club endured this, I feel Hanscom had it worst. Not counting Eddie's run in with Henry. His heartfelt devotion for Bev is mesmerizing, and I can only hope they had their happy-ending.
Which... is heartbreaking, in its own right. While I have no doubt there are many things about the sewers of Derry that would be horrible to live with for the rest of your life, can you imagine forgetting chunks of your life, of your past? It has to be absolutely disorienting, and readers can feel it in the conclusion of Bill and Audra's future. They'll never know the incident that happened, nor will they remember their childhood friends whom they loved.
On a brighter note, Steven Weber, the narrator for several of King's books, puts on a dazzling performance in It. He's easily carried away now and then, and it's nice to have a reader that is truly invested into the material he's recording. Weber earns a spot right next to Amanda Dolan as one of my all-time favorite narrators and this production is amazing.
Reluctantly, I have compromised with myself to give this a mid-grade rating. I am a tough critic, and this is something that has caused disagreements between myself and other readers, but in the end, there are elements of this book I simply cannot accept, no matter whose hand wrote them.
Fun fact: My fear of clowns began when I was eight years old and witnessed Tim Curry's Pennywise. It ended with Bill Skarsgard's.
If you're looking for an absolute tome of horror to read, It by Stephen King definitely fits that bill. I still prefer The Stand over this book, though. Wrought with the horrific trials visited upon children in the town of Derry, Maine, readers learn to love and loathe an extremely wide range of characters. While much of this book is entertaining, there are a few things I simply cannot condone.
There's a few scenes in here that are sexually graphic. This isn't uncommon in the horror market, and normally doesn't bother me. Only, I made the mistake of laughing off one of my ex's remarks regarding pre-pubescent intercourse and circle-jerking. I'm throwing that out there, in case it's something my readers wish to steer clear of. Not only that, but... Let's just say I prefer the movie's approach to Bev not being afraid, to the actual... what happened in the book, and we'll leave it at that. I cannot stomach some of the scenes of this book, not because they are terrifying, but because they are downright wrong, disgusting, and rather unnecessary.
That rant aside, this massive tome tells two stories alongside one another: the past and present battles with Pennywise the Dancing Clown mingle and cross between one another and, perhaps because I was listening to the audiobook (a whopping 45 hour track, if we're rounding), this made it difficult for me to keep the two straight. In fact, I had to rewind now and then to make sure I was hearing things properly (i.e. aforementioned rant). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: alternating time periods in this manner between the same characters in a story is maddeningly distracting for me.
King's character depth will always astound me. He makes even the briefest characters of his books memorable, giving them a backstory that is fully developed. There are several times he managed to goad emotions out of me that I didn't want to feel, and I love that. Ben Hanscom is by far my favorite, perhaps because in many ways, we share similar childhoods. Parents that care, the bullies, the blossoming from pre-pubescent torture - though the entire Loser's Club endured this, I feel Hanscom had it worst. Not counting Eddie's run in with Henry. His heartfelt devotion for Bev is mesmerizing, and I can only hope they had their happy-ending.
Which... is heartbreaking, in its own right. While I have no doubt there are many things about the sewers of Derry that would be horrible to live with for the rest of your life, can you imagine forgetting chunks of your life, of your past? It has to be absolutely disorienting, and readers can feel it in the conclusion of Bill and Audra's future. They'll never know the incident that happened, nor will they remember their childhood friends whom they loved.
On a brighter note, Steven Weber, the narrator for several of King's books, puts on a dazzling performance in It. He's easily carried away now and then, and it's nice to have a reader that is truly invested into the material he's recording. Weber earns a spot right next to Amanda Dolan as one of my all-time favorite narrators and this production is amazing.
Reluctantly, I have compromised with myself to give this a mid-grade rating. I am a tough critic, and this is something that has caused disagreements between myself and other readers, but in the end, there are elements of this book I simply cannot accept, no matter whose hand wrote them.
Fun fact: My fear of clowns began when I was eight years old and witnessed Tim Curry's Pennywise. It ended with Bill Skarsgard's.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Wolfwalkers (2020) in Movies
Oct 12, 2020
Wolfwalkers is the latest animated offering from Irish based studio, Cartoon Saloon. I’m actually ashamed to say that before watching Wolfwalkers, I was pretty unfamiliar with their previous Irish folklore offerings - The Secret of Kells (2009) and Song of the Sea (2014) - but having seen this latest animated feature, it’s a mistake that I will be looking to correct as quickly as possible.
Wolfwalkers is set in Kilkenny, Ireland (which is also the home of Cartoon Saloon!) during the 17th century. Robyn (Honor Kneafsey) has moved from Yorkshire with her father, Bill (Sean Bean) to the walled town, where Bill has been tasked by the rather menacing Lord Protector (Simon McBurney) to clear the surrounding forest of wolves. Once the forest is clear, the woodsmen can fell the trees and the farmers can start working the land.
There are signs everywhere, throughout the town and pinned to trees in the forest, showing a snarling wolf with a red cross drawn over it. A wolf attack on some woodsmen early on shows us just how dangerous the wolves are, and also introduces us to the Wolfwalkers that walk among them. With blazing eyes and fiery red hair, the Wolfwalkers are able to communicate with and control the wolves, calling them off their attacks on the humans. They also appear to possess magical healing abilities, using them to heal a wolf scratch on the chest of one of the men.
Robyn has dreams of following in her father’s footsteps and becoming a hunter as she practices her crossbow skills. So rather than work all day in the scullery, she decides to slip past the guards at the outer gate (no children are allowed beyond the town walls) and secretly follow her father out into the forest, watching him as he sets traps for the wolves. When she comes face to face with a wolf, it’s much smaller and a lot cuter than the ones we’ve seen before, and Robyn learns that it is, in fact, a young Wolfwalker named Mebh.
Robyn forms a bond with Mebh and discovers that when the Wolfwalkers sleep, they assume the body of a wolf, leaving their human body to sleep until they return in order to wake it up. Mebh is worried because her mother has been asleep for some time and her wolf form has not yet returned. Robyn learns that the Wolfwalkers are simply trying to defend the animals from the modern world that is encroaching on their forest and Robyn vows to help find her mother. A difficult task when the Lord Protector has given her father 2 days to clear the forest of wolves, and he isn’t listening to his daughter as she pleads with him to stop.
I found Wolfwalkers to be simply wonderful, with a captivating story full of twist and turns for both kids and adults to enjoy. It’s beautiful to look at too, utilising a watercolour style with rough pencil sketches visible in most of the characters and scenery only adding to its visual appeal. I was completely taken by surprise and just couldn’t fault it.
Wolfwalkers is set in Kilkenny, Ireland (which is also the home of Cartoon Saloon!) during the 17th century. Robyn (Honor Kneafsey) has moved from Yorkshire with her father, Bill (Sean Bean) to the walled town, where Bill has been tasked by the rather menacing Lord Protector (Simon McBurney) to clear the surrounding forest of wolves. Once the forest is clear, the woodsmen can fell the trees and the farmers can start working the land.
There are signs everywhere, throughout the town and pinned to trees in the forest, showing a snarling wolf with a red cross drawn over it. A wolf attack on some woodsmen early on shows us just how dangerous the wolves are, and also introduces us to the Wolfwalkers that walk among them. With blazing eyes and fiery red hair, the Wolfwalkers are able to communicate with and control the wolves, calling them off their attacks on the humans. They also appear to possess magical healing abilities, using them to heal a wolf scratch on the chest of one of the men.
Robyn has dreams of following in her father’s footsteps and becoming a hunter as she practices her crossbow skills. So rather than work all day in the scullery, she decides to slip past the guards at the outer gate (no children are allowed beyond the town walls) and secretly follow her father out into the forest, watching him as he sets traps for the wolves. When she comes face to face with a wolf, it’s much smaller and a lot cuter than the ones we’ve seen before, and Robyn learns that it is, in fact, a young Wolfwalker named Mebh.
Robyn forms a bond with Mebh and discovers that when the Wolfwalkers sleep, they assume the body of a wolf, leaving their human body to sleep until they return in order to wake it up. Mebh is worried because her mother has been asleep for some time and her wolf form has not yet returned. Robyn learns that the Wolfwalkers are simply trying to defend the animals from the modern world that is encroaching on their forest and Robyn vows to help find her mother. A difficult task when the Lord Protector has given her father 2 days to clear the forest of wolves, and he isn’t listening to his daughter as she pleads with him to stop.
I found Wolfwalkers to be simply wonderful, with a captivating story full of twist and turns for both kids and adults to enjoy. It’s beautiful to look at too, utilising a watercolour style with rough pencil sketches visible in most of the characters and scenery only adding to its visual appeal. I was completely taken by surprise and just couldn’t fault it.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk in TV
Mar 16, 2018 (Updated Mar 16, 2018)
The weird thing about the Hulk TV show is that it is almost nothing like the comic book version of the character, but still manages to be a classic piece of television (and was, for a long time, by far the most successful adaptation of a Marvel character to another medium). Creator Kenneth Johnson didn't want to do it, and did his hardest to distance his version from the book (he wanted to change the colour of the Hulk, but Marvel refused to let him), and ended up basically doing an American version of Les Miserables (the novel, not the musical) with Jean Valjean getting cross and swelling up into a monster twice an episode.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
May 5, 2018
Very good "culmination" of the last 10 years of Marvel Films
AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR is the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Said to be the culmination of 10 years worth of Marvel films - and Marvel heroes - INFINITY WAR lives up to it's bill, bringing all the Marvel Universe heroes together to fight a "big bad" that is worthy of this sort of thing - THANOS.
Voiced by Josh Brolin, the CGI Thanos is powerful, destructive, razor-focused on his one purpose with moments of "humanity" that makes him an interesting villain. The filmmakers kept his motivation and machinations simple so you are never confused by this bad guy or what he is trying to do. What surprised me is that the filmmakers added another layer to this character that was a nice layer that really added to the character, his motivations and his personality.
As for the band of heroes brought together for this film, it works well. The criticisms I have heard is that no ONE hero stands out, so EVERY hero is in the background. I couldn't disagree more. I thought the evenness of the "screen time" was one of the strengths of this film, not focusing too much on one hero (or heroes), giving all time to shine - and focus on what they do best. There were moments of humor, drama, action and heroism sprinkled across all. But what really thrilled me was the different combinations that were put together, for these heroes all had different missions and assignments and some odd and interesting cross-film dynamics took shape. I won't give any of these away, but I thought they ALL dynamics blended together nicely.
This is definitely a "fan-boy" film, giving service to fans of all these films, characters - and comics and credit for that should go to filmmakers Anthony and Joe Russo (Directors of the previously best film in this series - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER) who kept the action moving, the motivations of the participants simple and the effects dazzling.
One final note - this is the first part of a two part film, so it does end in a cliffhanger, one that works effectively well. As always with the Marvel films - but especially in this one - stay through to the end of the credits, the scene at the end of the credits sets up Part 2.
I thoroughly enjoyed my time at this film and can't wait to see the next one.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Said to be the culmination of 10 years worth of Marvel films - and Marvel heroes - INFINITY WAR lives up to it's bill, bringing all the Marvel Universe heroes together to fight a "big bad" that is worthy of this sort of thing - THANOS.
Voiced by Josh Brolin, the CGI Thanos is powerful, destructive, razor-focused on his one purpose with moments of "humanity" that makes him an interesting villain. The filmmakers kept his motivation and machinations simple so you are never confused by this bad guy or what he is trying to do. What surprised me is that the filmmakers added another layer to this character that was a nice layer that really added to the character, his motivations and his personality.
As for the band of heroes brought together for this film, it works well. The criticisms I have heard is that no ONE hero stands out, so EVERY hero is in the background. I couldn't disagree more. I thought the evenness of the "screen time" was one of the strengths of this film, not focusing too much on one hero (or heroes), giving all time to shine - and focus on what they do best. There were moments of humor, drama, action and heroism sprinkled across all. But what really thrilled me was the different combinations that were put together, for these heroes all had different missions and assignments and some odd and interesting cross-film dynamics took shape. I won't give any of these away, but I thought they ALL dynamics blended together nicely.
This is definitely a "fan-boy" film, giving service to fans of all these films, characters - and comics and credit for that should go to filmmakers Anthony and Joe Russo (Directors of the previously best film in this series - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER) who kept the action moving, the motivations of the participants simple and the effects dazzling.
One final note - this is the first part of a two part film, so it does end in a cliffhanger, one that works effectively well. As always with the Marvel films - but especially in this one - stay through to the end of the credits, the scene at the end of the credits sets up Part 2.
I thoroughly enjoyed my time at this film and can't wait to see the next one.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Paul (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Can you think of a better vacation than going to the San Diego Comic-Con, then hopping into an RV with your best friend to travel around America checking out various UFO hot spots? If you answered “Heck No!” then you would get along just fine with Klingon-speaking best friends from the UK, Graeme Willy (Simon Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Nick Frost).
That’s how the movie Paul begins, at one of the greatest conventions, San Diego Comic Con. Then Graeme and Clive are off on their cross country adventure during which they meet all sorts of interesting people including Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), an alien whose ship crash landed on Earth 60 years ago and, until his recent escape, had been a “guest” at a secret military base. After some fainting, wetting pants and fears about probing have been addressed, Graeme and Clive agree to help Paul get to where he can meet his mothership and go home.
At this point the movie goes from funny to really funny and as the three of them get to know each other better, Graeme and Clive soon realize that Paul is just a everyday guy like them (well except for the whole alien thing). They also meet Bible-thumper Ruth (Kristen Wiig) whom they accidentally kidnap, causing her shotgun-toting father to chase after them. Of course there are government agents also looking for them and the movie even throws in a few high speed chases. To round out the road trip there’s even a fight at a biker bar (Star Wars fans will love the band playing inside). Will they achieve their goal and send Paul home? Will there be probing? Klaatu barada nikto?
The special effects that went into creating Paul and his realistic interactions with the human cast were amazing, however the humorous soul that Seth Rogen breathed into Paul made the character truly out of this world. Not since Mork and Gordon Shumway (ALF) has an alien made me laugh so hard. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost were their usual extremely funny dynamic-duo selves. The movie is loaded with well-placed humorous references to sci-fi movies and shows, a well-balanced amount of action and great character interactions with an unbelievable supporting cast that includes Jason Bateman, Jane Lynch and Bill Hader just to name a few. This movie is not only one that I want to see again in the theatre but one that I also want to own.
That’s how the movie Paul begins, at one of the greatest conventions, San Diego Comic Con. Then Graeme and Clive are off on their cross country adventure during which they meet all sorts of interesting people including Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), an alien whose ship crash landed on Earth 60 years ago and, until his recent escape, had been a “guest” at a secret military base. After some fainting, wetting pants and fears about probing have been addressed, Graeme and Clive agree to help Paul get to where he can meet his mothership and go home.
At this point the movie goes from funny to really funny and as the three of them get to know each other better, Graeme and Clive soon realize that Paul is just a everyday guy like them (well except for the whole alien thing). They also meet Bible-thumper Ruth (Kristen Wiig) whom they accidentally kidnap, causing her shotgun-toting father to chase after them. Of course there are government agents also looking for them and the movie even throws in a few high speed chases. To round out the road trip there’s even a fight at a biker bar (Star Wars fans will love the band playing inside). Will they achieve their goal and send Paul home? Will there be probing? Klaatu barada nikto?
The special effects that went into creating Paul and his realistic interactions with the human cast were amazing, however the humorous soul that Seth Rogen breathed into Paul made the character truly out of this world. Not since Mork and Gordon Shumway (ALF) has an alien made me laugh so hard. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost were their usual extremely funny dynamic-duo selves. The movie is loaded with well-placed humorous references to sci-fi movies and shows, a well-balanced amount of action and great character interactions with an unbelievable supporting cast that includes Jason Bateman, Jane Lynch and Bill Hader just to name a few. This movie is not only one that I want to see again in the theatre but one that I also want to own.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stillwater (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Matt Damon - solid central performance (1 more)
Intelligent script
Life is Brutal
Positives:
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
