Search
Search results
Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found
Book
An international bestseller upon publication, MAXIMUM CITY was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and...
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated The Exorcist in Phoenix Theatre (London, United Kingdom) in Shows
Jul 16, 2020
Fantastically terrifying!
I truly love a horror. Whether that is a book, movie or even a play as I found out after watching The Exorcist. It is so much more intriguing than the film! So very close in plot, nothing much is changed from the 'true' story it is based upon. But the sounds that echo throughout the theatre, draw you in and everyone disappears, leaving only yourself and the cast. The girl that plays Regan is so believable! She could have been possessed for real and I would have believed it! And unlike the film, I actually jumped! The lighting is crazy and the bass literally bounces your seat so you really feel it!!
What I also loved was how clever the stage setting was! It was all one set. Nothing moved or changed. It looked like a dollhouse and the only thing they did was switch the light on the room they were in. So clever and very effective!!! If you're ever in London, go see it!!!!
What I also loved was how clever the stage setting was! It was all one set. Nothing moved or changed. It looked like a dollhouse and the only thing they did was switch the light on the room they were in. So clever and very effective!!! If you're ever in London, go see it!!!!
The Story of My Life
8.4
Rate It
Book
An American classic rediscovered by each generation, The Story of My Life is Helen Keller’s...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Supernova (2020) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Tucci and Firth - an acting masterclass (1 more)
A slow and very moving study of a difficult subject
“You’re not supposed to mourn someone before they die.”
Sam (Colin Firth) is a famous concert pianist. Tusker (Stanley Tucci) a famous author. But Tusker has Alzheimer's, and is starting to go downhill. The loving couple take their battered motorhome on a last great adventure round England's Lake District, taking in a visit with Sam's sister Lil while there.
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Demon Seed: A novel of terror to horrify you this Halloween in Books
May 16, 2018
One of the things I’ve noticed when I’m running around between thrift stores is an abundance of Dean Koontz novels. That said, I’ve definitely been stockpiling them up, and the first one I read out of my Koontz pile is Demon Seed. Demon Seed is told from a rather peculiar perspective: that of a computer with artificial intelligence. Before I delve deeper into my thoughts on Demon Seed, I would like to note that this is a copy of the 1997 release, and not the original novel published in 1973. There are differences in the two books, however because I have not happened to lay hands upon the original version, I am unable to compare or contrast their contents. As such, my review is based solely upon the second version of the book, which is told solely from the perspective of Proteus, the artificial intelligence program that is all too frighteningly real.
The idea of a computer striking fear into someone’s heart is a bit of an oddball, but with the idea of artificial intelligence an all too possible reality, fear over what could happen should the AI take control of itself and evolve is real. In Demon Seed that science is taken too far when Proteus takes control of his own programming and not only stalks the recently divorced Susan Harris, but holds her captive within her own home. With a plan for the ideal race of humans on its mind, Proteus sets forth on a horrifying adventure to create for himself the perfect body, and poor Susan is a key player in his endeavor.
As a premise, especially for something originally written in the early 70’s, the idea behind Demon Seed is intriguing. I find Proteus to be a very disturbing character, and the way in which Koontz pens Proteus gives me chills. I remember once, a long time ago, having a similar feeling while reading a novel by P. T. Deutermann, in which the occasional chapter was in the killer’s perspective. I don’t remember the name of the book, only the fact that I was left nerve-wracked. Koontz’s Proteus is not too far off from that mark and the mere fact that Koontz is able to capture that essence of a true sociopath with an inanimate object (if I can really call Proteus that) probably factors into my opinion on the book the most. The other characters, and to some degree Susan as well, strike me as a bit one-dimensional. They have a single, solitary purpose and while they possess wildly different backgrounds, the way in which the story progresses does not leave room for the development of feelings toward the characters.
Demon Seed is an extremely quick read, and if you’ve got the time to sit for a few hours and thumb through its pages, I’d definitely recommend it. While it isn’t among my favorite books, and only receives a passing “meh” score from me, it was enjoyable. The linear plot line, told from a single, solitary perspective, makes it an easy read as well. There is also a movie adaptation of the novel, but it is not presently on my to-watch list.
The idea of a computer striking fear into someone’s heart is a bit of an oddball, but with the idea of artificial intelligence an all too possible reality, fear over what could happen should the AI take control of itself and evolve is real. In Demon Seed that science is taken too far when Proteus takes control of his own programming and not only stalks the recently divorced Susan Harris, but holds her captive within her own home. With a plan for the ideal race of humans on its mind, Proteus sets forth on a horrifying adventure to create for himself the perfect body, and poor Susan is a key player in his endeavor.
As a premise, especially for something originally written in the early 70’s, the idea behind Demon Seed is intriguing. I find Proteus to be a very disturbing character, and the way in which Koontz pens Proteus gives me chills. I remember once, a long time ago, having a similar feeling while reading a novel by P. T. Deutermann, in which the occasional chapter was in the killer’s perspective. I don’t remember the name of the book, only the fact that I was left nerve-wracked. Koontz’s Proteus is not too far off from that mark and the mere fact that Koontz is able to capture that essence of a true sociopath with an inanimate object (if I can really call Proteus that) probably factors into my opinion on the book the most. The other characters, and to some degree Susan as well, strike me as a bit one-dimensional. They have a single, solitary purpose and while they possess wildly different backgrounds, the way in which the story progresses does not leave room for the development of feelings toward the characters.
Demon Seed is an extremely quick read, and if you’ve got the time to sit for a few hours and thumb through its pages, I’d definitely recommend it. While it isn’t among my favorite books, and only receives a passing “meh” score from me, it was enjoyable. The linear plot line, told from a single, solitary perspective, makes it an easy read as well. There is also a movie adaptation of the novel, but it is not presently on my to-watch list.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Limehouse Golem (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The community of Limehouse in Victorian London have been rocked by a series of murders. They have called the mudered the Golem, as only such a creature could have done these heinous acts.
Elizabeth Cree, the music hall star, has been arrested for the poisoning of her husband John Cree on the same night as the last Golem murder. But when evidence is found by Inspector John Kildare that links John Cree to the murders, he sets about trying to solve both cases so that he might save Elizabeth from hanging for her crime.
Their investigation leads them to an exclusive reading room at the library, and a book on the art of murder. Within its pages are hand written notes chronicling the Golem murders to date. Only four men entered the reading room when the last entry was made; Dan Leno, Karl Marx, George Gissing and John Cree. Can the inspector eliminate the other three men and prove Cree is the Golem in order to save Elizabeth?
I was looking forward to this one. Some top actors were involved, and I love a bit of Victorian era murder. The film itself was good throughout, I can't fault it for the scenery and acting.
But...
Those of you that know me, know that I don't think about films. I'm sure I keep saying this. I watch them to have some fun, to escape reality, so what's the point in picking apart something that's made as a fiction to entertain you?
Even with me suspending my brain function for the duration of the film, I paused and thought... oh, this is what's going to happen... and it did. It felt a bit cliche, like the twist had been overused in every film like this that I'd seen. I don't think it was designed that way though. There was a clear moment in the film where they want you to know what is happening, but the realisation of the ending cam much earlier than this. And it was disappointing. I was enjoying the film a lot until I realised what was coming. Talking to my movie buddy I discovered that I wasn't the only one who had this feeling. It's such a shame, but the twist felt so obvious to me that I was suddenly very disappointed.
I have taken to looking at Rotten Tomatoes after seeing a film, and this one is currently sitting at 77% with critics and 61% with the audience. I'd say that's about right. I've left the major spoiler out of here, but if you're familiar with this sort of story then I don't think you'd be hard pressed to work it out. It is an excellent film in it's genre, but it was let down, for me, by the obvious direction it went in.
Elizabeth Cree, the music hall star, has been arrested for the poisoning of her husband John Cree on the same night as the last Golem murder. But when evidence is found by Inspector John Kildare that links John Cree to the murders, he sets about trying to solve both cases so that he might save Elizabeth from hanging for her crime.
Their investigation leads them to an exclusive reading room at the library, and a book on the art of murder. Within its pages are hand written notes chronicling the Golem murders to date. Only four men entered the reading room when the last entry was made; Dan Leno, Karl Marx, George Gissing and John Cree. Can the inspector eliminate the other three men and prove Cree is the Golem in order to save Elizabeth?
I was looking forward to this one. Some top actors were involved, and I love a bit of Victorian era murder. The film itself was good throughout, I can't fault it for the scenery and acting.
But...
Those of you that know me, know that I don't think about films. I'm sure I keep saying this. I watch them to have some fun, to escape reality, so what's the point in picking apart something that's made as a fiction to entertain you?
Even with me suspending my brain function for the duration of the film, I paused and thought... oh, this is what's going to happen... and it did. It felt a bit cliche, like the twist had been overused in every film like this that I'd seen. I don't think it was designed that way though. There was a clear moment in the film where they want you to know what is happening, but the realisation of the ending cam much earlier than this. And it was disappointing. I was enjoying the film a lot until I realised what was coming. Talking to my movie buddy I discovered that I wasn't the only one who had this feeling. It's such a shame, but the twist felt so obvious to me that I was suddenly very disappointed.
I have taken to looking at Rotten Tomatoes after seeing a film, and this one is currently sitting at 77% with critics and 61% with the audience. I'd say that's about right. I've left the major spoiler out of here, but if you're familiar with this sort of story then I don't think you'd be hard pressed to work it out. It is an excellent film in it's genre, but it was let down, for me, by the obvious direction it went in.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated I'll Take You There in Books
May 10, 2018
Felix Funicello is a film professor who lives in Connecticut. He is divorced and has one daughter, Eliza, who is currently working for New York Magazine. Felix also has two older sister, Simone and Frances who are an integral part of his life. Felix hold a movie club on Monday nights in the old Vaudeville theater in town. One night as he is setting up, he is visited by the ghost of Lois Weber, a renowned film director in her time. Lois shows Felix glimpses of his life along with the important women in it. Through these snapshots, Felix gains a greater understanding of the women in his life and women in general.
This book was reminiscent to A Christmas Carol, but he is visited by the same ghost, who brings three different visitors with her. Felix is first returned to his six year-old self. Where he and his sisters are helping their neighbor gather votes to become the next Rheingold Girl. Rheingold is a beer. This happens after his daughter tells him she has to write a piece about these girls.
The next transportation is a few years later when Felix is twelve. His mother and sister are talking in the kitchen about her boss being inappropriate with her at work. This part I heard just a few days after hearing day after day about a new man in a high position has been removed because of inappropriate behavior in the work place. Mind you, this is taking place in the early '60s and times were different, but some things never change. As Eliza, is telling her mother about what her boss has said, it's the mother's response that truly strikes me.
<i>"Men are men. Shapely girls like you just have to put up with stuff like that in the working world or else quit. Those are your choices."</i>
Thank God, those are no longer our choices, and that shouldn't have been the mentality then, maybe we wouldn't have all these issues today.
Also during this trip, Felix is given some news about his family that will change the dynamic forever.
The final time Lois comes to visit, the guest she brings, gives Felix a testimony that he has wondered about in the back of his mind for most of his life. That helps to fill a missing piece. The story is sad and is a part of the two previous visits from Lois.
All of these visits help Felix to be a better man, brother and father to the women in his life.
I think this is a very important book for all women to read, especially with the things going on in our world today. Told from the male point of view, I think it helps to see that some men can be empathetic to the plights of women. And this books covers a lot of those plights, from feminism, to abortion, adoption and acceptance. Years ago, I read She's Come Undone by Wally Lamb and I remember feeling the same way after reading it. Read them both.
This book was reminiscent to A Christmas Carol, but he is visited by the same ghost, who brings three different visitors with her. Felix is first returned to his six year-old self. Where he and his sisters are helping their neighbor gather votes to become the next Rheingold Girl. Rheingold is a beer. This happens after his daughter tells him she has to write a piece about these girls.
The next transportation is a few years later when Felix is twelve. His mother and sister are talking in the kitchen about her boss being inappropriate with her at work. This part I heard just a few days after hearing day after day about a new man in a high position has been removed because of inappropriate behavior in the work place. Mind you, this is taking place in the early '60s and times were different, but some things never change. As Eliza, is telling her mother about what her boss has said, it's the mother's response that truly strikes me.
<i>"Men are men. Shapely girls like you just have to put up with stuff like that in the working world or else quit. Those are your choices."</i>
Thank God, those are no longer our choices, and that shouldn't have been the mentality then, maybe we wouldn't have all these issues today.
Also during this trip, Felix is given some news about his family that will change the dynamic forever.
The final time Lois comes to visit, the guest she brings, gives Felix a testimony that he has wondered about in the back of his mind for most of his life. That helps to fill a missing piece. The story is sad and is a part of the two previous visits from Lois.
All of these visits help Felix to be a better man, brother and father to the women in his life.
I think this is a very important book for all women to read, especially with the things going on in our world today. Told from the male point of view, I think it helps to see that some men can be empathetic to the plights of women. And this books covers a lot of those plights, from feminism, to abortion, adoption and acceptance. Years ago, I read She's Come Undone by Wally Lamb and I remember feeling the same way after reading it. Read them both.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
The Illusion of Choice
Contains spoilers, click to show
I should preface this review by saying a few things. First of all, I don't like Black Mirror. I have watched a handful of episodes from the first season and always felt like it wasn't as clever as it tried to be. I do however like Charlie Brooker, I am a fan of his 'Wipe,' shows and I like his no bullshit personality. Lastly, I am not a fan of games or books where the audience is asked to choose the path they want to take. I believe that the writer of the movie/game/book should be the one to dictate where the story goes, not Joe Bloggs sitting on his couch covered in Doritos powder.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
