Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Best Christmas Wallpaper.s: Free Beautiful Image.s
Entertainment and Productivity
App
* High quality wallpapers and backgrounds for ios devices - Christmas backgrounds, free Christmas...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The legendary King Kong returns in an all new adventure that gives the classic tale a much needed update and new setting. Unlike Perter Jackson’s retelling of the original Black and White film, “Kong: Skull Island” eschews the old for the new and in doing so breathes a much needed new life and vitality into the franchise.
The film is set in 1973 when William Randa (John Goodman), informs the government that they have detected a previously unknown island and need to investigate it before the Soviets learn of it and beat them to whatever the island my hold.
William recruits a team which includes a former British officer named James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), and Photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), to assist his team lead by Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), in mapping the island.
William also asks for a military escort and the government enlists Lt. Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), and his team to accompany the mission. Packard is trying to find his place in the world as he and his helicopter combat team are dealing with the recent end of the Vietnam War. His men are looking forward to going home and resuming their lives, but a dour Packard jumps at the chance for another mission over the uncertainty of the future.
Upon arriving on the mysterious island and starting their survey mission by using seismic charges, the team attract the attention of Kong who is not at all pleased with the intrusion on his island. Kong makes short work of the copters and the team finds themselves scattered about the dangerous island. They soon learn that Kong is not the only danger on the island and must find a way to rejoin each other and make it to their extraction point alive.
Naturally some of the characters have a hidden agenda and there are dangerous and action around every corner. Further complicating matters is the appearance of Marlow (John C. Reilly), a downed WWII pilot who has been stranded on the island for 23 years and warns of dangers far greater than Kong that are ahead of the team.
The film combines a solid cast with state of the art special effects to take a new twist on the standard adventure fare. While many parts of the film remain silly Popcorn entertainment, the quality of the assembled cast allows the film to move beyond being just an assembly of potential victims for a menagerie of CGI creatures to dispatch.
While the story is more in lines with the linear and thin plots of adventure films of old, the sum of the parts does add up to an enjoyable film experience for those who like the giant creature films. You will want to make sure to stay after the credits as there is a very good scene that shows a setup for a future film that had those in attendance at our press screening cheering.
The film may be a bit intense for younger viewers but if you are looking for a touch of nostalgia and action, you may find the film just what you need.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/08/kong-skull-island/
The film is set in 1973 when William Randa (John Goodman), informs the government that they have detected a previously unknown island and need to investigate it before the Soviets learn of it and beat them to whatever the island my hold.
William recruits a team which includes a former British officer named James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), and Photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), to assist his team lead by Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), in mapping the island.
William also asks for a military escort and the government enlists Lt. Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), and his team to accompany the mission. Packard is trying to find his place in the world as he and his helicopter combat team are dealing with the recent end of the Vietnam War. His men are looking forward to going home and resuming their lives, but a dour Packard jumps at the chance for another mission over the uncertainty of the future.
Upon arriving on the mysterious island and starting their survey mission by using seismic charges, the team attract the attention of Kong who is not at all pleased with the intrusion on his island. Kong makes short work of the copters and the team finds themselves scattered about the dangerous island. They soon learn that Kong is not the only danger on the island and must find a way to rejoin each other and make it to their extraction point alive.
Naturally some of the characters have a hidden agenda and there are dangerous and action around every corner. Further complicating matters is the appearance of Marlow (John C. Reilly), a downed WWII pilot who has been stranded on the island for 23 years and warns of dangers far greater than Kong that are ahead of the team.
The film combines a solid cast with state of the art special effects to take a new twist on the standard adventure fare. While many parts of the film remain silly Popcorn entertainment, the quality of the assembled cast allows the film to move beyond being just an assembly of potential victims for a menagerie of CGI creatures to dispatch.
While the story is more in lines with the linear and thin plots of adventure films of old, the sum of the parts does add up to an enjoyable film experience for those who like the giant creature films. You will want to make sure to stay after the credits as there is a very good scene that shows a setup for a future film that had those in attendance at our press screening cheering.
The film may be a bit intense for younger viewers but if you are looking for a touch of nostalgia and action, you may find the film just what you need.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/08/kong-skull-island/
Miss Hollywood Showtime - Pet House Makeover
Entertainment and Games
App
Budge Studios™ presents Miss Hollywood Showtime! Miss Hollywood and her fabulously fiercetastic...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not sure whether you need to watch the other films in this series being that this is number four in the sequence. I did buy them before this came out but never got round to them. I don't think I've missed out of anything, but you can never be sure.
We get a lot of striking black and white (sort of) shots throughout the film. The snow and dark buildings are very effective. As were the action sequences. You can see a snippet of the home invasion in the trailer and the slow motion leap. I do wonder how many films put them in just because they think it's the done thing. But the whole piece worked well.
I don't really know what it is about her but I'm not a fan of Claire Foy. This is the third film with her in this year and none of them have hit the spot. Out of the three this one in my favourite, there's something a little less irritating about her on-screen presence. Perhaps it's that the character of Lisbeth is naturally awkward.
When I saw Stephen Merchant in the trailer I'm not going to lie, I was a little concerned. I find him amusing and generally enjoy his hop across the pond to movies and TV. Those have mostly got a comedic lean to them though. This roll however had none and I'm not really sure it suited him. He's still got those slightly oddball characteristics that don't really fit in such a serious movie.
Sadly I don't feel like there's much more I want to say about The Girl In The Spider's Web apart from mentioning the James Bond vibes you get from everything from the opening credits to, well, the general feel of the whole thing.
What you should do
It's certainly not a waste of time watching it, definitely catch it when it hits streaming or the TV.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some amazing IT/hacking skills wouldn't go amiss in my day to day life.
We get a lot of striking black and white (sort of) shots throughout the film. The snow and dark buildings are very effective. As were the action sequences. You can see a snippet of the home invasion in the trailer and the slow motion leap. I do wonder how many films put them in just because they think it's the done thing. But the whole piece worked well.
I don't really know what it is about her but I'm not a fan of Claire Foy. This is the third film with her in this year and none of them have hit the spot. Out of the three this one in my favourite, there's something a little less irritating about her on-screen presence. Perhaps it's that the character of Lisbeth is naturally awkward.
When I saw Stephen Merchant in the trailer I'm not going to lie, I was a little concerned. I find him amusing and generally enjoy his hop across the pond to movies and TV. Those have mostly got a comedic lean to them though. This roll however had none and I'm not really sure it suited him. He's still got those slightly oddball characteristics that don't really fit in such a serious movie.
Sadly I don't feel like there's much more I want to say about The Girl In The Spider's Web apart from mentioning the James Bond vibes you get from everything from the opening credits to, well, the general feel of the whole thing.
What you should do
It's certainly not a waste of time watching it, definitely catch it when it hits streaming or the TV.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some amazing IT/hacking skills wouldn't go amiss in my day to day life.
Musical Maker for iPad and iPhone - Live Video App
Productivity
App
This is the best app that let you make and edit video in real time by adding different sounds on...
Cards Against Humanity
8.2
Rate It
Tabletop Game Watch
"A party game for horrible people." Play begins with a judge, known as the "Card Czar", choosing...
BoardGames PartyGames
Jump Desktop (RDP, VNC, Fluid)
Business, Utilities and Productivity
App
Leave your laptop behind. Enjoy the freedom to work from anywhere. Jump Desktop is a powerful...
Tommy Wiseau recommended A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) in Movies (curated)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Purple Hearts in Books
Oct 24, 2017
Reimagined History
This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
An epic tale of a reimagined World War II comes to an explosive end in this third and final book Purple Hearts. Michael Grant created an alternative history in which women were allowed to enter the army and fight alongside the men on the front lines in Europe. Having earned accolades, promotions and the right to go home to America at the conclusion of the previous book, Rio, Frangie and Rainy decide to stay for the remains of the war. It is 6th June 1944, and the battle on the sands of Omaha Beach is about to begin – D-Day.
The story rushes into the horrors of the D-Day landings where Rio, now a Sergeant, is leading her platoon through the treacherous battleground, whilst Frangie, the medic, tries to patch up fallen comrades. The author teases the reader with the introduction of new characters who promptly get killed during this fateful day and battles further along the line. There is no sugar coating the horrific experience of soldiers and civilians, regardless of whether the scenes are fictionalized or not.
The difficulty with writing a work of fiction about the final years of World War II is that the majority of readers will already know the facts. Therefore, it was impossible for Grant to compose a drastic alternative history. Despite the inclusion of women soldiers, the main events occur exactly as they did in reality, beginning with D-Day before moving on to Liberated France, the Hürtgen Forest, the Battle of the Bulge, and, eventually, VE Day.
The three main characters have undergone complete transformations since the beginning of book one. No longer are they the innocent girls mocked for the belief they could be as strong as male soldiers. As horror after horror unfolds, readers are left with only the hope that these three survive.
Throughout book one and two, the narrative was interspersed with a commentary from an anonymous female soldier in a bed at the 107th evacuee hospital in Würzburg, Germany. As promised at the beginning of the series, readers finally find out which character this nameless voice belongs to, although it is dragged out until the final pages of the book.
The title, Purple Hearts, refers to the medal earned by soldiers injured in battle. Rio, Frangie and Rainy have each received one, along with a few other characters. Unfortunately, many are killed in the battles, some who have been in the story from the start, making this an extremely shocking book. It goes to show how dangerous war is and the brutality WWII soldiers experienced. It is a surprise that as many survived as they did.
Although at this point the main focus of the story is the war, there is still the underlying theme of equality, both for women and for black people. Frangie provides the insight into the segregation of blacks, being assigned to black-only patrols and having white patients refuse to be treated by her. However, as the war gets more violent, these lines get blurred until it is (mostly) no longer important the colour of a soldier or medic’s skin.
Purple Hearts is a brilliant end to a challenging series. Readers become invested in the characters and are drawn into a story that is so true to form that it is easy to forget that women did not actually take part in the fighting. Evidently well researched, Michael Grant has penned a series that educates whilst it entertains, opening readers’ eyes to the truth about war. This is nothing like a textbook full of facts and figures, it is a moving, personal (forget the fictional bit) account of what WWII was really like. Written with young adults in mind, this is a great series for both teens and older readers.
An epic tale of a reimagined World War II comes to an explosive end in this third and final book Purple Hearts. Michael Grant created an alternative history in which women were allowed to enter the army and fight alongside the men on the front lines in Europe. Having earned accolades, promotions and the right to go home to America at the conclusion of the previous book, Rio, Frangie and Rainy decide to stay for the remains of the war. It is 6th June 1944, and the battle on the sands of Omaha Beach is about to begin – D-Day.
The story rushes into the horrors of the D-Day landings where Rio, now a Sergeant, is leading her platoon through the treacherous battleground, whilst Frangie, the medic, tries to patch up fallen comrades. The author teases the reader with the introduction of new characters who promptly get killed during this fateful day and battles further along the line. There is no sugar coating the horrific experience of soldiers and civilians, regardless of whether the scenes are fictionalized or not.
The difficulty with writing a work of fiction about the final years of World War II is that the majority of readers will already know the facts. Therefore, it was impossible for Grant to compose a drastic alternative history. Despite the inclusion of women soldiers, the main events occur exactly as they did in reality, beginning with D-Day before moving on to Liberated France, the Hürtgen Forest, the Battle of the Bulge, and, eventually, VE Day.
The three main characters have undergone complete transformations since the beginning of book one. No longer are they the innocent girls mocked for the belief they could be as strong as male soldiers. As horror after horror unfolds, readers are left with only the hope that these three survive.
Throughout book one and two, the narrative was interspersed with a commentary from an anonymous female soldier in a bed at the 107th evacuee hospital in Würzburg, Germany. As promised at the beginning of the series, readers finally find out which character this nameless voice belongs to, although it is dragged out until the final pages of the book.
The title, Purple Hearts, refers to the medal earned by soldiers injured in battle. Rio, Frangie and Rainy have each received one, along with a few other characters. Unfortunately, many are killed in the battles, some who have been in the story from the start, making this an extremely shocking book. It goes to show how dangerous war is and the brutality WWII soldiers experienced. It is a surprise that as many survived as they did.
Although at this point the main focus of the story is the war, there is still the underlying theme of equality, both for women and for black people. Frangie provides the insight into the segregation of blacks, being assigned to black-only patrols and having white patients refuse to be treated by her. However, as the war gets more violent, these lines get blurred until it is (mostly) no longer important the colour of a soldier or medic’s skin.
Purple Hearts is a brilliant end to a challenging series. Readers become invested in the characters and are drawn into a story that is so true to form that it is easy to forget that women did not actually take part in the fighting. Evidently well researched, Michael Grant has penned a series that educates whilst it entertains, opening readers’ eyes to the truth about war. This is nothing like a textbook full of facts and figures, it is a moving, personal (forget the fictional bit) account of what WWII was really like. Written with young adults in mind, this is a great series for both teens and older readers.