Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Good Lord! How much sex and violence is acceptable for a UK-15 film?
I recognise that it’s a “thing” that I get into periodic ‘ruts’ of ranting about particular aspects of cinema. But it’s not spoilers in trailers this time! No, the most recent rut I’ve been in is concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the BBFC’s rating of UK 15-certificate films, which seems to have been the rating of every cinema film I’ve seen recently! In my view both “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” should both have firmly been 12A’s to attract a broader teenage audience. But here’s a case on the other side of the balance.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
Little Ray Of Sunshine (41 KP) rated It’s a Wonderful Life in Books
Jan 11, 2019 (Updated Feb 10, 2019)
Book Review | It's a Wonderful by Julia Williams
Before I opened the book I was amazed by the beautiful cover. I loved I received this right before the Christmas holidays.
This book is set from 3 characters point of view Beth, Beth’s Sister Lou, and Beth’s Husband Daniel.
Beth as everything she wants a perfect life, perfect job and a perfect husband and 2 children, Sam and Megan. But not everything is perfect as Beth doesn’t feel that her husband Daniel doesn’t support her job picture-book artist. But when she is struggling to get the ideas flowing and she doesn’t get along with her editor Vanessa. Vanessa brings in help has the new art director and old flame of Beth called Jack Stevens. When she sees him she is transported back to when they were in college and she starts to contemplate if she was still with Jack what her life would be like, she can’t get Jack out her mind. Will Beth be tempted to have an affair with Jack? When he tells her that he made mistake in the past.
While Beth is struggling to get inspiration on her book and her mind is on Jack her husband is struggling with his new job as a head teacher for a school want needs help as they had bad results from Ofsted. Daniel is struggling to balance school and handle his children he hardly sees as they have grown up, Sam keeps getting drunk hanging out with his friends and doesn’t care about his GCSE’s and Megan is also hanging out with the wrong people. He just wants a better life with them than he did with his father. Daniel’s father Reggie comes back into his life trying to build bridges but he doesn’t want anything to do with him. But Reggie wants to see his grandchildren. So when Sam and Megan meet him they want him to be back in their dad’s life and Sam starts to bond and they have a lot in common as they both creative and love music. This is where it breaks the family apart as Sam, Megan and Beth want Daniel to hear his dad out and see why he left him when he was younger. You see Daniel’s past and how he feels toward his dad and he wants to build bridges with his dad but he's scared that he will walk out of all their lives. Will he forgive his dad and find out what truly happened and why he left?
Beth’s sister Lou is going through a bad patch in her life and her also as a big secret from her family. She just feels that her family especially her mum and dad wouldn’t like that she feels attraction to other women. She feels that she's the black sheep of the family as Beth is the ‘perfect’ one and their brother Ged is the ‘golden’ boy and never does anything wrong. She's going through a break up from her Girlfriend Jo as she felt that their relationship was one way as Jo never had time for her. Lou also lost her job so she had to move back in with her mum and dad. But when she moved in she notices something wrong with their mum and dad. It turned out that their dad was having an affair with women from an art class. Lou felt her life and her parent's lives are falling apart. You feel sorry for her as you want her to have a happy life. Will their parents accept that she feels more attractive to women?
As you can see the book is based around Christmas and being with their family but everything seems perfect on the outside but once you get reading into the book you see that be careful what you wish for.
This book was a heartwarming book and I can’t wait to read more of Julia Williams books. She really grabbed me into their world and it shows me that all families aren’t perfect. I felt their mum is like mine as my mum always plans in advance for Christmas.
I will make sure to purchase more of her books as she grabbed me from the first page and it made me feel all warm inside.
Thanks, Julia x
This book is set from 3 characters point of view Beth, Beth’s Sister Lou, and Beth’s Husband Daniel.
Beth as everything she wants a perfect life, perfect job and a perfect husband and 2 children, Sam and Megan. But not everything is perfect as Beth doesn’t feel that her husband Daniel doesn’t support her job picture-book artist. But when she is struggling to get the ideas flowing and she doesn’t get along with her editor Vanessa. Vanessa brings in help has the new art director and old flame of Beth called Jack Stevens. When she sees him she is transported back to when they were in college and she starts to contemplate if she was still with Jack what her life would be like, she can’t get Jack out her mind. Will Beth be tempted to have an affair with Jack? When he tells her that he made mistake in the past.
While Beth is struggling to get inspiration on her book and her mind is on Jack her husband is struggling with his new job as a head teacher for a school want needs help as they had bad results from Ofsted. Daniel is struggling to balance school and handle his children he hardly sees as they have grown up, Sam keeps getting drunk hanging out with his friends and doesn’t care about his GCSE’s and Megan is also hanging out with the wrong people. He just wants a better life with them than he did with his father. Daniel’s father Reggie comes back into his life trying to build bridges but he doesn’t want anything to do with him. But Reggie wants to see his grandchildren. So when Sam and Megan meet him they want him to be back in their dad’s life and Sam starts to bond and they have a lot in common as they both creative and love music. This is where it breaks the family apart as Sam, Megan and Beth want Daniel to hear his dad out and see why he left him when he was younger. You see Daniel’s past and how he feels toward his dad and he wants to build bridges with his dad but he's scared that he will walk out of all their lives. Will he forgive his dad and find out what truly happened and why he left?
Beth’s sister Lou is going through a bad patch in her life and her also as a big secret from her family. She just feels that her family especially her mum and dad wouldn’t like that she feels attraction to other women. She feels that she's the black sheep of the family as Beth is the ‘perfect’ one and their brother Ged is the ‘golden’ boy and never does anything wrong. She's going through a break up from her Girlfriend Jo as she felt that their relationship was one way as Jo never had time for her. Lou also lost her job so she had to move back in with her mum and dad. But when she moved in she notices something wrong with their mum and dad. It turned out that their dad was having an affair with women from an art class. Lou felt her life and her parent's lives are falling apart. You feel sorry for her as you want her to have a happy life. Will their parents accept that she feels more attractive to women?
As you can see the book is based around Christmas and being with their family but everything seems perfect on the outside but once you get reading into the book you see that be careful what you wish for.
This book was a heartwarming book and I can’t wait to read more of Julia Williams books. She really grabbed me into their world and it shows me that all families aren’t perfect. I felt their mum is like mine as my mum always plans in advance for Christmas.
I will make sure to purchase more of her books as she grabbed me from the first page and it made me feel all warm inside.
Thanks, Julia x
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 15, 2020
A lot of squawking birds
Although not saying much, Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn was one of the best thing in the lacklustre D.C. outing “Suicide Squad” of 2016. Now, she returns in her own vehicle. Jared Leto’s Joker is a thing of the past (clearly he wasn’t keen on dredging up the past for even a cameo in this one).
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
s.Oliver Fashion
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
s.Oliver: Discover fashion trends on the move Description Shop new fashion outfits around the...
Electric Guitar Lessons - Ultimate Guide
Music and Education
App
This app has over 300 easy to follow video lessons on how to play the Electric Guitar including...
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Frostbite in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I enjoyed this book nearly as much as the first one in the series, but I'm getting really frustrated with the lack of progress in Dimitri and Rose's forbidden romance. Instead, it seems to have taken a backseat to other plotlines, such as the turmoil between Rose and her mother and the political climate that Lissa is moving into. I find Rose's mother, Janine, intriguing in that she seems to be what Rose could become if Rose chooses duty over love. I sure wish that Janine would open up more since there seems to be a lot of great plot material there that was not exploited very much - Rose's black eye being a perfect example. The politics that Lissa is dealing with appear to be moving in the direction that I guessed might happen when I read the first book, which is an equalizing between the Moroi and Dhampir classes of their society, especially when it comes to dealing with the Strigoi.
Despite how Rose views Adrian, I actually rather like him. There is always something attractive about the flirty-jokester that entices women - afterall I don't know a woman who doesn't like to laugh. It's obvious that he really likes Rose and I find myself feeling sorry for him since Rose is definitely taken, even if not in the literal sense yet. Mason really ends up in the worst position, though, even if I don't include what happens to him in the end. Rose all but lies to him while he falls for her hard, all the while being the perfect gentlemen. In a way, Mason and Adrian are opposite in styles, and yet Rose is blind to both - not that I blame her, as she likes to say, "Dimitri is a badass." Why is it that female protagonists always seem to have hords of guys going after them? (Think - Twilight saga, Rachel Morgan series, Mercy Thompson series, House of Night series, etc.)
I wish that Rose's nazar could be explained a bit more, as there seems to be more to it than anyone is discussing. Adrian knows things that he is not spilling, and Janine sure is tight-lipped about most of her life, excluding what she does in the line of duty.
Despite how Rose views Adrian, I actually rather like him. There is always something attractive about the flirty-jokester that entices women - afterall I don't know a woman who doesn't like to laugh. It's obvious that he really likes Rose and I find myself feeling sorry for him since Rose is definitely taken, even if not in the literal sense yet. Mason really ends up in the worst position, though, even if I don't include what happens to him in the end. Rose all but lies to him while he falls for her hard, all the while being the perfect gentlemen. In a way, Mason and Adrian are opposite in styles, and yet Rose is blind to both - not that I blame her, as she likes to say, "Dimitri is a badass." Why is it that female protagonists always seem to have hords of guys going after them? (Think - Twilight saga, Rachel Morgan series, Mercy Thompson series, House of Night series, etc.)
I wish that Rose's nazar could be explained a bit more, as there seems to be more to it than anyone is discussing. Adrian knows things that he is not spilling, and Janine sure is tight-lipped about most of her life, excluding what she does in the line of duty.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Do You Love in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Oxford
Book
Oxford started as an Anglo-Saxon border outpost, with a bridge replacing the 'oxen ford' from which...