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.
I grew up in the 1960's watching old monster movies on Saturday afternoons on an old black and white TV in the home I grew up in. A staple of these Saturday afternoon movies was the Godzilla monster movies from Japan, featuring such great monsters as Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah. So, imagine my excitement when I realized that they all would be in the same film.
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
HIGH on the warm and fuzzy/too stinking cute scale!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
I stand by what I said in my review for book 2. This is book 3 in the Billionaire's Playground but its not necessary to have read book one, Property of a Billionaire, nor book 2, Reluctant Billionaire before this one. However, those books are where we meet Nanna and you might want to get the full force of her nature :-)
Marcus is a photographer, dis-illusioned with his current career path. Taking pictures in war zones is eating away at his soul. Doing a favour for his best friend seems like just the distraction he needs. Until he meets Finlo. Now that man is a distraction to end ALL distraction and Marcus is smitten. Finlo is also smitten with the older man, but Marcus wouldn't want him, surely? Fin who has no mouth to brain filter? Who says whatever pops into his head? Fin, who is a skinny runt?? Surely not?
OH! This book? I loved this book! So much more than the other two books and I really enjoyed them! This book is so much more than them, and I will *attempt* to explain!
Mostly, I think it's Fin who makes this book. He's a character all right and I loved him. He has no filter, he says and sees things in black and white and he knows he not everyone cuppa tea, indeed, he thinks he is NO-ONE's cuppa tea, but Marcus is drawn to Fin in ways he never knew he could be drawn in. It's not just the beauty he sees when he looks at Fin through the camera lens, cos He can see that the man is stunning, even if Fin doesn't think so. No, it's what Marcus does when Fin starts rambling, and panicking about anything and everything: nothing. He lets Fin ramble, he lets Fin work his way through whatever is bothering him and he never once tries to shut him up, well. . .he DOES, but only in a way that Fin wants :-)
Nanna's meddling is there, as in the other books, but I found it to be a little on the low side, Marcus and Fin don't need much meddling, but a few little pushes, rather than a full scale assault is all they need, Fin, actually needs those pushes. And a shopping trip or two!
It's low on the angst, but high on the steam. But not explicit, just steamy enough.
Again, Marcus doesn't flaunt his wealth. He works HARD for his money, and he wants to share that wealth. And he does, in ways that surprises Fin. Marcus WILL spoil Fin, if he'll just let him. His mum was a surprise, especially after she meets Fin's eco-warrior, teepee-living mum. Those two were meant to be friends!
And when Marcus does what he does at the end?? Very fitting for these two, the way he does that, it really was!
I found this to be a beautiful read, that is high on the warm and fuzzies, and too stinking cute scale, and I loved it so much MORE than the other two!
After witnessing a murder, black high school student Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) decides to stand up against racism while dealing with her own internal conflict of self-identity.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
The toughest part about critiquing is having to say something isn’t perfect, but not really having any ideas as to how to fix it. The beginning was…good. Characters are introduced as you meet the Carter family for the first time. It definitely could have been better, however. I felt it dragged on for slightly too long, but at the same time I understand director George Tillman Jr. was going for an emotional connection. While it could’ve been better, it is solid enough of a start to get you into the movie.
Characters: 10
The film revolves around Starr and her family. Each family member contributes to the overall dynamic of the story. You can see how Starr is shaped by her strong father Maverick (Russell Hornsby) who is all about standing up for what’s right and protecting the family at all costs. Her mother Lisa (Regina Hall) just wants Starr to have a better life than herself growing up. Starr recognizes that and tries to embrace it, but also feels guilty while doing so. It was therapeutic watching Starr evolve into a woman after feeling so powerless in the earlygoings of the film. All of these characters, even those outside of the Carter family, have depth and add value to the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
The Hate U Give is packed with twists and turns that you don’t expect or see coming. It really is a small world that we live in, too small to go around hating each other. The film succeeds by showing us just how small this world is. There are a number of memorable scenes that remain etched in my brain long after watching the movie. It’s one of those films that stays with you, leaving you with cause for much thought.
Pace: 9
There were a few spots where the build-up was a bit slow, but it’s not a major issue that impacts the movie as a whole. This goes back to what I was mentioning in the beginning. Not perfect, but I’m not sure how much I would have done differently than Tillman Jr. For the most part, the movie is highly entertaining and has a consistent flow.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ended just the way it should, not with some fairytale conclusion, but reality. Thank God for justice, but the movie leaves us with the full understanding that there is still work yet to be done. Very strong messaging.
Overall: 95
The Hate U Give is not your typical race war movie as it pushes for peace in coexistence and challenges the ideas of self-identification. The dynamics involved here are truly interesting as you see a black vs. white vs. hood life going on and what happens when lines cross. With a solid cast and story, it is not a surprise that this is one of my favorite films of 2018.
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
"""In “Honey Boy,” Alma works deftly, without gimmick. From what I’ve seen, her work is always elegant, but here I think it may also be because of her confidence in the story, how she’s so deeply connected to it and to her subject, Shia, with whom she shares a common bond. LaBeouf’s script seems to want to hide nothing and to do so, it has to be very naturalistically compelling on its own. At first glance the story seems a familiar one, but this script and film effortlessly show the complex nuances of these relationships in a completely new light.
Alma and Natasha Braier, her DP, move the camera emotionally, never drawing attention to style, only pulling you into the character. That said, the work is empirically beautiful. As layers are peeled back through their lens and these beautifully raw performances, Alma’s personal connection to the actors and the subject matter navigates the fine line of both sides of the relationship. It would be easier to show us the black and white, but Alma chooses the harder path, taking us through the gray area.
Watching the film forces viewers to acknowledge their own complicated relationships; In my case the one I had with my biological father, which I’ve compartmentalized and downplayed my whole life. I had deluded myself into thinking I was content not to know exactly why he wasn’t there until I was in my 30s. I realize now that I still don’t know the answers to all the questions I’ve wanted to ask him.
“Honey Boy” is Shia’s very personal childhood memoir but still somehow manages to become universal, interweaving the feelings and roles of child and parent, how those lines are all too often blurred. It’s about the feeling of failure and the feeling of fucking up. Not living up to expectations as the child and never being enough as the parent, how pride can be the most destructive thing to a family. It is emotionally disrupting watching it, not just as the former child but also as a mother who believes she’s doing it all wrong and the ripple effect she may have caused due to her mistakes. Alma’s work nails something which most films nowadays miss the mark at: it evokes a spectrum of very distinct feelings far too difficult to put into words alone. To convey the “unexplainable” in a way that is neither precious nor forced is incredibly difficult to achieve on film, but “Honey Boy” does that in the most compelling and honest way.
By making the audience witnesses to the most painfully intimate moments, the film gives them the quiet space necessary to realize it may be possible to understand and feel deeply even for the person whom they had most wanted to despise. “Honey Boy” speaks the truth: that though you always hope there’s a good reason, most of the time the answers you find will never be enough."""
Rate It 