Search
Saffy Alexandra (89 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in Books
May 26, 2019
Don't be so sirius ...
As much as I say I can't choose one of the Harry Potter books as my favourite ... this one possibly takes the biscuit! The humour, the mystery and of course the introduction of two of my (everyones?) favourite characters: Remus Lupin and Sirius Black.
The way Rowling manages to make us all panic and worry for Harry the entire way through the book to end up actually rooting for the 'bad guy' is probably one of her many talents (no spoilers but read the last book people).
The introduction of the Dementors who are supposed to 'protect' the school and pupils was chilling - no pun intended - and the actual meaning of them for Rowling's own depression was a real interesting twist to these 'childrens' books. Just adding more and more layers to these fabulous books. Introducing a concept such as 'depression' to young readers is a very difficult thing to do and Rowling achieves this with grace and tact. Introducing something as big as depression to young readers, she has managed to crack through the metaphorical glass roof in the way of mental health. Showing children that any person (Wizard or Muggle) can be effected by depression but there are ways to help combat it is something that is done beautifully in this book.
One of the main things I loved about this book was that she made a werewolf, in which horror has made us fear and distrust, into a character we all root for and adore. His backstory of how he has been mistreated by society and basically pushed to one side is respondent to what has happened to certain people in our society. Again, these are meant to be children's books - Rowling manages to put these points across in such a informative but almost gentle way for children to understand without directly shoving it down their throats. I believe in this way Rowling has managed to help the readers who grew up with these books understand the issues in our society and has helped people grow up to want to help end the stigma attached to certain groups and help make equality in our society.
Not bad for children's book.
The way Rowling manages to make us all panic and worry for Harry the entire way through the book to end up actually rooting for the 'bad guy' is probably one of her many talents (no spoilers but read the last book people).
The introduction of the Dementors who are supposed to 'protect' the school and pupils was chilling - no pun intended - and the actual meaning of them for Rowling's own depression was a real interesting twist to these 'childrens' books. Just adding more and more layers to these fabulous books. Introducing a concept such as 'depression' to young readers is a very difficult thing to do and Rowling achieves this with grace and tact. Introducing something as big as depression to young readers, she has managed to crack through the metaphorical glass roof in the way of mental health. Showing children that any person (Wizard or Muggle) can be effected by depression but there are ways to help combat it is something that is done beautifully in this book.
One of the main things I loved about this book was that she made a werewolf, in which horror has made us fear and distrust, into a character we all root for and adore. His backstory of how he has been mistreated by society and basically pushed to one side is respondent to what has happened to certain people in our society. Again, these are meant to be children's books - Rowling manages to put these points across in such a informative but almost gentle way for children to understand without directly shoving it down their throats. I believe in this way Rowling has managed to help the readers who grew up with these books understand the issues in our society and has helped people grow up to want to help end the stigma attached to certain groups and help make equality in our society.
Not bad for children's book.
Louise (64 KP) rated Reasons to Stay Alive in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This book is a memoir from when Matt Haig was 24 and suffered severe depression and anxiety. Matt discusses everything relating to depression and anxiety including medicines, his childhood, his symptoms, warning signs and things that make you worse. This book is so relatable, Matt doesn’t sugar coat it, he tells it how it is. It’s refreshing to read from someone’s perspective who has suffered from the black dog and actually gives a realistic account rather than a psychologist who has never experienced it first hand. Matt really speaks to the reader telling them that they’re not alone that many people have suffered from this and pulled through but also some of the people who haven’t. As a fellow sufferer of anxiety and depression I was ready for the anti – pills argument, but this didn’t happen, Matt realises that some people will need medicine to help, for me personally I sighed with relief, I take medicine to stop the panic attacks and I still take them for the fear of them re-occurring. I would rather be on medicine than suffer. Another thing I could relate to Matt was the fear of death and becoming a bit of a hypochondriac, I know my fear of death is irrational and my biggest fear is choking but with medicine and mindfulness techniques my brain no longer goes into overdrive and I can fully function. Matt Haig has become a writer due to his depression as it was a coping mechanism for him, sometimes people need to find something to occupy them and express themselves, again totally relatable.If you as someone who has suffered from depression reads this book I can guarantee that you will be nodding in agreement the whole way through. The chapters are short and discuss a certain topics, it’s very easy to read and flows well with some humour added. This book is not just helpful for the sufferer but really useful for people around them to realise what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
I recommend this book to anyone that wants a real account of depression and anxiety.
Overall I rated this 4.5 stars out of 5
I recommend this book to anyone that wants a real account of depression and anxiety.
Overall I rated this 4.5 stars out of 5
ClareR (5879 KP) rated Happy Family in Books
Oct 29, 2019
One to look out for next year!
Happy Family is set in the near future, where people game via glasses and one augmented reality game in particular is very popular: Happy Family. This game was invented by Tom Hannah, also an artist, who has hidden himself away with his suicidal thoughts in Spain in the middle of nowhere, after the death of his mother. Germaine Kiecke, an art academic, is a huge fan of Tom’s and wants to interview him for her new book. But Tom is guarded by a strange girl and three huge dogs who are named after the Marx brothers. Germaine has had a traumatic upbringing as an orphan in Belgium in a notorious orphanage called ‘Motherhood’. Thus she finds it impossible to express her feelings except through Tom’s game Happy Family. So when she finds out that something threatens this game for her and millions of others, she’s forced to take a look at how she lives her life.
Germaine was a difficult character to get an understanding of, but I think in view of her childhood that was reasonable. The other characters who also relied on Tom Hannah in some way were actually very amusing - whether they were supposed to be or not, I don’t know, but towards the end of the novel, their antics descended (or ascended!) into slapstick. For various reasons that I won’t go into (I don’t want to spoil it!), this was both sad and funny - there was a healthy dose of black humour throughout really.
I read this on The Pigeonhole, and the other readers had a real mix of opinions: it seems to have been a real ‘marmite’ book. Personally, I loved it. It ticked a lot of boxes for me, first and foremost being it’s quirkiness. There was some gaming talk, but it was relevant to the story and the characters, and I don’t actually think there was that much considering that it was set against the backdrop of the game (and lets face it, I have two teenage sons who are obsessed with the Xbox 🙄).
I really enjoyed this book, and thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising it.
Germaine was a difficult character to get an understanding of, but I think in view of her childhood that was reasonable. The other characters who also relied on Tom Hannah in some way were actually very amusing - whether they were supposed to be or not, I don’t know, but towards the end of the novel, their antics descended (or ascended!) into slapstick. For various reasons that I won’t go into (I don’t want to spoil it!), this was both sad and funny - there was a healthy dose of black humour throughout really.
I read this on The Pigeonhole, and the other readers had a real mix of opinions: it seems to have been a real ‘marmite’ book. Personally, I loved it. It ticked a lot of boxes for me, first and foremost being it’s quirkiness. There was some gaming talk, but it was relevant to the story and the characters, and I don’t actually think there was that much considering that it was set against the backdrop of the game (and lets face it, I have two teenage sons who are obsessed with the Xbox 🙄).
I really enjoyed this book, and thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising it.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Prince of Thorns in Books
Nov 25, 2019
There are heroes who will stop at nothing. There are anti-heroes. Then there is Jorg.
As wider events across the kingdoms unfold, Jorg must face up to his past in order to survive the present, and make a future for himself and his band of Brothers.
In any other series of books, Jorg would be the villain of the piece. A prince of one of the hundred kingdoms, he is the leader of a violent gang despite being only a teenager. He demonstrates a complete lack of compassion and pursues his goals with a single minded ruthlessness that is unusual even by the standard of 'grimdark' fantasy fiction. But in Lawrence's very capable hands the reader will be rooting for him, despite his highly questionable motives, morals and actions.
The narrative follows two lines, the 'present' and the events of four years previously when Jorg first took up his life of robbery and violence, with other flashbacks into his deeper past, exploring just why he is the way he is.
The characterisation is superb, and the description of the fantasy world Jorg inhabits is spellbinding. As the odds he faces mount, Jorg simply becomes more cunning, more devious and more deadly. If he can't win within the rules that the world has set, he simply changes the rules to suit himself. There is also a terrific streak of black humour that runs throughout the book, which somewhat lifts the tone.
This does show a little as a first novel. The writing is maybe not as fluent as the subsequent works and sometimes the story wanders a little before getting back on track but, just like Jorg, it does what it sets out to do.
If you like your fantasy full of happy elves and heroes prepared to risk all for a noble cause this probably isn't the book for you. If you want to read about someone who will stop at nothing when he is pushed to the limit then this may well be what you are looking for.
Rating: Plenty of graphic violence and sexual references throughout
As wider events across the kingdoms unfold, Jorg must face up to his past in order to survive the present, and make a future for himself and his band of Brothers.
In any other series of books, Jorg would be the villain of the piece. A prince of one of the hundred kingdoms, he is the leader of a violent gang despite being only a teenager. He demonstrates a complete lack of compassion and pursues his goals with a single minded ruthlessness that is unusual even by the standard of 'grimdark' fantasy fiction. But in Lawrence's very capable hands the reader will be rooting for him, despite his highly questionable motives, morals and actions.
The narrative follows two lines, the 'present' and the events of four years previously when Jorg first took up his life of robbery and violence, with other flashbacks into his deeper past, exploring just why he is the way he is.
The characterisation is superb, and the description of the fantasy world Jorg inhabits is spellbinding. As the odds he faces mount, Jorg simply becomes more cunning, more devious and more deadly. If he can't win within the rules that the world has set, he simply changes the rules to suit himself. There is also a terrific streak of black humour that runs throughout the book, which somewhat lifts the tone.
This does show a little as a first novel. The writing is maybe not as fluent as the subsequent works and sometimes the story wanders a little before getting back on track but, just like Jorg, it does what it sets out to do.
If you like your fantasy full of happy elves and heroes prepared to risk all for a noble cause this probably isn't the book for you. If you want to read about someone who will stop at nothing when he is pushed to the limit then this may well be what you are looking for.
Rating: Plenty of graphic violence and sexual references throughout
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated A Man Derailed: An Autobiography on Depression in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
As a sufferer of depression, this book definitely caught my attention. This synopsis for this book definitely drew me in, or perhaps I'm just nosy and want to know what it's like for others, lol. Either way, I was very impressed with this book.
A Man Derailed by Paul Holmes is one man's battle with depression due to a major life event. Holmes describes his battle with depression and his ups and downs. He also discusses what helped him get through his depression.
I just want to say that the title, A Man Derailed, is fantastic for this book. I definitely feel that this is a great title for the book due to what happens. I won't go into much more as I don't want to give anything away, but by the end of chapter 1, you will see why this title fits perfectly.
Being as this is an autobiography about one man's struggle with depression, I think the cover is well suited. I like how one side of Holmes' face is all black and the other is decorated in clown make-up. Having depression is like that. On one side, you feel like you're falling into a black abyss. On the other hand, you have to put on a facade to the world as mental health is still a very taboo subject, unfortunately.
Paul Holmes sets up the setting and world building of his book very well. Throughout the book, I felt I was seeing everything happen through his eyes as well as living it with him.
I'm not really a fan of autobiographies as most of the time, the pacing of the book is way too slow for my liking. However, A Man Derailed wasn't like that. The pacing of this book was spot on, and I found myself wanting to know more and more about what Mr. Holmes said or did.
I very much enjoyed how well written this book was. I loved how Holmes was able to inject humour into his book as well, so it wasn't all doom and gloom. A lot of the times, I was actually laughing out loud. I also found myself agreeing with everything Holmes had written. There is quite a bit of swearing, so if you're not big into swear words, be warned. However, I don't mind swearing as I think it totally fit in with the theme of this book. The only problem I found was that there were a lot of punctuation and grammar mistakes. However, this is because I'm a grammar nazi. It didn't really bother me, nor did it take away from the book.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+ that have/had depression, that know someone with depression, or those who want to have more insight into what it's like having depression.
I'd give A Man Derailed by Paul Holmes a 4.5 out of 5.
As a sufferer of depression, this book definitely caught my attention. This synopsis for this book definitely drew me in, or perhaps I'm just nosy and want to know what it's like for others, lol. Either way, I was very impressed with this book.
A Man Derailed by Paul Holmes is one man's battle with depression due to a major life event. Holmes describes his battle with depression and his ups and downs. He also discusses what helped him get through his depression.
I just want to say that the title, A Man Derailed, is fantastic for this book. I definitely feel that this is a great title for the book due to what happens. I won't go into much more as I don't want to give anything away, but by the end of chapter 1, you will see why this title fits perfectly.
Being as this is an autobiography about one man's struggle with depression, I think the cover is well suited. I like how one side of Holmes' face is all black and the other is decorated in clown make-up. Having depression is like that. On one side, you feel like you're falling into a black abyss. On the other hand, you have to put on a facade to the world as mental health is still a very taboo subject, unfortunately.
Paul Holmes sets up the setting and world building of his book very well. Throughout the book, I felt I was seeing everything happen through his eyes as well as living it with him.
I'm not really a fan of autobiographies as most of the time, the pacing of the book is way too slow for my liking. However, A Man Derailed wasn't like that. The pacing of this book was spot on, and I found myself wanting to know more and more about what Mr. Holmes said or did.
I very much enjoyed how well written this book was. I loved how Holmes was able to inject humour into his book as well, so it wasn't all doom and gloom. A lot of the times, I was actually laughing out loud. I also found myself agreeing with everything Holmes had written. There is quite a bit of swearing, so if you're not big into swear words, be warned. However, I don't mind swearing as I think it totally fit in with the theme of this book. The only problem I found was that there were a lot of punctuation and grammar mistakes. However, this is because I'm a grammar nazi. It didn't really bother me, nor did it take away from the book.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+ that have/had depression, that know someone with depression, or those who want to have more insight into what it's like having depression.
I'd give A Man Derailed by Paul Holmes a 4.5 out of 5.
JT (287 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As the dust settles on a film that has seriously ‘hulk smashed’ the box office its clear to see why this film has been met with such high acclaim from critics and fans alike. There is no getting away from the fact that this is one hell of a blockbuster, with more superheroes than you can cram into a S.H.I.E.L.D. meeting room and a villain that almost stole the whole show, it had pretty much everything.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated David Brent: Life on the Road (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A squirm-athon from beginning to end.
“Life on the Road” is a mockumentary sequel to the classic British version of the TV comedy “The Office” (obviously later remade for the US market and featuring Steve Carell). Ricky Gervais played the ego-centric David Brent, a monster of a character who exercised what little control he had in his managerial role at a Slough paper company.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
BlacKkKlansman just ticked all the right boxes for me. Spike Lee has created a piece that is moving, hilarious, horrific, poignant and something truly important.
John David Washington and Adam Driver are a winning leading pair, portraying Ron Stallworth and Flip Zimmerman respectively, two police officers from Colorado Springs who manage to infiltrate a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, in an attempt to foil a potentially fatal and racially charged attack, and it's all based on a quite incredible true story.
Washington and Driver are both fantastic, providing this movie with most of it's heart, humour and emotion.
Topher Grace is great as well, as David Duke, a top brass member of the KKK. He's so smarmy, and easy to dislike, much like his real life counter part. This applies to all the racist pieces of shit in this story actualy. The characters are all horrible, but the cast bring them to life in a disturbingly believable way.
The screenplay is nothing but tight from start to finish. It's very funny in places, and heart wrenching in others. A particular highlight is a speech spoken early on by black rights speaker Kwame Ture. It's a lengthy monologue that is so damn powerful. There are multiple scenes that strike hard throughout the runtime - another standout moment is the truly uncomfortable visuals of Ron Stallworth looking on in quiet despair as KKK members cheer loudly whilst watching The Birth of a Nation. Humanity can be extremely ugly, and although BlacKkKlansman veers towards comedy at times, Lee is sure to never stray too far from that fact.
Some of the criticism I've read of this movie are along the lines of "it has an agenda" and "it's being forced down the audiences throat". Well, yeah if course it has an agenda. It's dealing with a topic that shouldn't even exist in the first place, but it's certainly not being force fed. No one is forcing anybody to watch it, but I highly recommend that EVERYONE does watch it.
The inclusion of real life footage of protests in 2017 is a strong statement, it's a director publicly taking a stand for something he believes in. In 2020, these topics feel more important than ever.
BlacKkKlansman is an incredible movie, and nothing can change my mind about that.
John David Washington and Adam Driver are a winning leading pair, portraying Ron Stallworth and Flip Zimmerman respectively, two police officers from Colorado Springs who manage to infiltrate a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, in an attempt to foil a potentially fatal and racially charged attack, and it's all based on a quite incredible true story.
Washington and Driver are both fantastic, providing this movie with most of it's heart, humour and emotion.
Topher Grace is great as well, as David Duke, a top brass member of the KKK. He's so smarmy, and easy to dislike, much like his real life counter part. This applies to all the racist pieces of shit in this story actualy. The characters are all horrible, but the cast bring them to life in a disturbingly believable way.
The screenplay is nothing but tight from start to finish. It's very funny in places, and heart wrenching in others. A particular highlight is a speech spoken early on by black rights speaker Kwame Ture. It's a lengthy monologue that is so damn powerful. There are multiple scenes that strike hard throughout the runtime - another standout moment is the truly uncomfortable visuals of Ron Stallworth looking on in quiet despair as KKK members cheer loudly whilst watching The Birth of a Nation. Humanity can be extremely ugly, and although BlacKkKlansman veers towards comedy at times, Lee is sure to never stray too far from that fact.
Some of the criticism I've read of this movie are along the lines of "it has an agenda" and "it's being forced down the audiences throat". Well, yeah if course it has an agenda. It's dealing with a topic that shouldn't even exist in the first place, but it's certainly not being force fed. No one is forcing anybody to watch it, but I highly recommend that EVERYONE does watch it.
The inclusion of real life footage of protests in 2017 is a strong statement, it's a director publicly taking a stand for something he believes in. In 2020, these topics feel more important than ever.
BlacKkKlansman is an incredible movie, and nothing can change my mind about that.