Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Nov 4, 2018
Come for the music, stay...for the music
My musical tastes end somewhere in the late 1970's/early 1980's. Billy Joel, ELO and, especially, Queen were in constant rotation on my turntable. So it was with a mixture of excitement and nervousness that I checked out BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY, the "Queen movie".
Fortunately, this film rekindled my love for the music of Queen. I gotta admit, I was cranking Queen tunes in the car on the ride home. Unfortunately, the storytelling is weak, so I really did not gain any insight into Freddy, his family, the group, his marriage, his bi-sexuality, his drug use, the times they lived in or the AIDS epidemic of the '80's. All these items were touched upon in the movie, but not delved into, leaving a void in the part of my brain that craves a good, meaningful and touching story with my movie/musicals. It certainly doesn't help this story that I have the wonderful A STAR IS BORN sitting in my recent memory.
But the music, the musical performances and the acting performances of all involved almost make up for this void, leaving a very satisfying experience at the movies.
BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY follows young Farrokh Bulsara as he joins the band SMILE, changes the bands name to QUEEN, changes his name to Freddie Mercury and becomes an International Superstar leading up to the inevitable fall and resurgence at the Live Aid concert in the 1980's.
In the lead, Rami Malik is wonderful. He has the essence of the superstar we know down well. He is a winning, watchable presence on screen and I wouldn't be surprised if he is mentioned when Oscar nominations roll around. Joining him as members of the band are Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, Joe Mazzello as John Deacon and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All are effective enough in their roles - and believable in the musical scenes - with Lee standing out just a bit more than the others.
Also along for the ride are Lucy Boyton as Freddy's wife, Mary Austin and Tom Hollander, Mike Myers and Aidan Gillen as music execs aiding and attempting to guide Queen to the top. Only Allen Leech as Paul Prenter is unconvincing on the screen. But, I blame this more to the decisions of the screenwriters and directors for Paul is the "villain" of this piece - and a not-too-subtle villain at that.
But, Director Bryan Singer (X-MEN, THE USUAL SUSPECTS) is forgiven his lapses in content and subtlety as the music scenes are strong - and the film finishes with a 20 minute recreation of Queen at the Live Aid concert that is worth the price of admission all on it's own.
All in all, a good time at the movies. If you like Queen, you'll be entertained by this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fortunately, this film rekindled my love for the music of Queen. I gotta admit, I was cranking Queen tunes in the car on the ride home. Unfortunately, the storytelling is weak, so I really did not gain any insight into Freddy, his family, the group, his marriage, his bi-sexuality, his drug use, the times they lived in or the AIDS epidemic of the '80's. All these items were touched upon in the movie, but not delved into, leaving a void in the part of my brain that craves a good, meaningful and touching story with my movie/musicals. It certainly doesn't help this story that I have the wonderful A STAR IS BORN sitting in my recent memory.
But the music, the musical performances and the acting performances of all involved almost make up for this void, leaving a very satisfying experience at the movies.
BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY follows young Farrokh Bulsara as he joins the band SMILE, changes the bands name to QUEEN, changes his name to Freddie Mercury and becomes an International Superstar leading up to the inevitable fall and resurgence at the Live Aid concert in the 1980's.
In the lead, Rami Malik is wonderful. He has the essence of the superstar we know down well. He is a winning, watchable presence on screen and I wouldn't be surprised if he is mentioned when Oscar nominations roll around. Joining him as members of the band are Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, Joe Mazzello as John Deacon and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All are effective enough in their roles - and believable in the musical scenes - with Lee standing out just a bit more than the others.
Also along for the ride are Lucy Boyton as Freddy's wife, Mary Austin and Tom Hollander, Mike Myers and Aidan Gillen as music execs aiding and attempting to guide Queen to the top. Only Allen Leech as Paul Prenter is unconvincing on the screen. But, I blame this more to the decisions of the screenwriters and directors for Paul is the "villain" of this piece - and a not-too-subtle villain at that.
But, Director Bryan Singer (X-MEN, THE USUAL SUSPECTS) is forgiven his lapses in content and subtlety as the music scenes are strong - and the film finishes with a 20 minute recreation of Queen at the Live Aid concert that is worth the price of admission all on it's own.
All in all, a good time at the movies. If you like Queen, you'll be entertained by this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fast & Furious (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
igh adrenaline films have always been a signature of the summer movie season and with a bevy of blockbusters lines up for the summer months, Universal has the opening salvo with the very impressive “Fast and Furious”.
Although the fourth film in the series, the film is in many ways is the first true sequel to the 2001 original as it reunites Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.
The film opens with a spectacular high speed heist where Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), and his crew attempt to steal petroleum tankers. The amazing pacing and driving and stunt sequences is easily the best opening sequences in the series and had the audience at my press screening on the edge of their seats.
With the heat on Dominic, he decides to split up the group so they do not get busted when the authorities catch up to him. Unfortunately this means slipping away from his longtime love Letty (Michelle Rodriguez).
At the same time, F.B.I. agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), is under the gun from his superiors to bring down a drug trafficker who has eluded all efforts to indentify much less capture but is known for his reputation for ruthlessness. With lead after lead coming up empty for his task force, O’Conner pursues a name that may just shed some light on the true identify of his target.
When events unfold that force Dominic to return to Los Angeles on a mission of revenge, his path crosses O’Conner and the two men renew the rivalry that has existed between them which hits the high gear when both men find themselves in an illegal street race.
The winner of the race gets to join the driving team of the drug trafficker that O’Conner is seeking, and with Dominic having his own motivations, the intense race through the packed streets is easily one of the most intense racing sequences ever captured.
In time the two men find themselves working with one another to bring down a common foe, but old issues still remaining between the duty driven O’Conner and the outlaw Dominick, especially regarding Dominick’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), who had a relationship with O’Conner before he revealed himself to be an undercover agent in the first film.
What follows is a pedal to the metal adventure that sets a breakneck pace and lets up only enough from the audience to briefly catch their breath.
Walker and Diesel make a dynamic team and unlike the previous films in the series, “Fast and Furious” has a plot that does not drag and holds the attention of the audience and serves as little more than filler between action sequences.
Director Justin Lin (Who helmed the last film in the series Tokyo Drift), balances the two leads with the awesome array of racing machines in the film without ever losing fact that this is a character driven story.
With a great cast and amazing driving sequences the film was a very pleasant surprise and has me looking forward to the next chapter in the series. Not only is this a strong comeback for Walker and Diesel but is easily the best film in the series and should delight the fans.
Although the fourth film in the series, the film is in many ways is the first true sequel to the 2001 original as it reunites Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.
The film opens with a spectacular high speed heist where Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), and his crew attempt to steal petroleum tankers. The amazing pacing and driving and stunt sequences is easily the best opening sequences in the series and had the audience at my press screening on the edge of their seats.
With the heat on Dominic, he decides to split up the group so they do not get busted when the authorities catch up to him. Unfortunately this means slipping away from his longtime love Letty (Michelle Rodriguez).
At the same time, F.B.I. agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), is under the gun from his superiors to bring down a drug trafficker who has eluded all efforts to indentify much less capture but is known for his reputation for ruthlessness. With lead after lead coming up empty for his task force, O’Conner pursues a name that may just shed some light on the true identify of his target.
When events unfold that force Dominic to return to Los Angeles on a mission of revenge, his path crosses O’Conner and the two men renew the rivalry that has existed between them which hits the high gear when both men find themselves in an illegal street race.
The winner of the race gets to join the driving team of the drug trafficker that O’Conner is seeking, and with Dominic having his own motivations, the intense race through the packed streets is easily one of the most intense racing sequences ever captured.
In time the two men find themselves working with one another to bring down a common foe, but old issues still remaining between the duty driven O’Conner and the outlaw Dominick, especially regarding Dominick’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), who had a relationship with O’Conner before he revealed himself to be an undercover agent in the first film.
What follows is a pedal to the metal adventure that sets a breakneck pace and lets up only enough from the audience to briefly catch their breath.
Walker and Diesel make a dynamic team and unlike the previous films in the series, “Fast and Furious” has a plot that does not drag and holds the attention of the audience and serves as little more than filler between action sequences.
Director Justin Lin (Who helmed the last film in the series Tokyo Drift), balances the two leads with the awesome array of racing machines in the film without ever losing fact that this is a character driven story.
With a great cast and amazing driving sequences the film was a very pleasant surprise and has me looking forward to the next chapter in the series. Not only is this a strong comeback for Walker and Diesel but is easily the best film in the series and should delight the fans.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Oct 25, 2018 (Updated Oct 25, 2018)
Sublime performance from Rami Malek (1 more)
Sound mixing
They Will Rock You
I feel like I should preface this review with some context. Queen were the first band that I was properly into and the Bohemian Rhapsody/These Are The Days Of Our Loves double A side CD was the first piece of music that I ever bought with my own money. I have loved Queen's music for the vast majority of my life and I have grown up watching their concerts and music videos. I have been waiting for this movie to be made for a long time.
So did it meet my lofty expectations? Well, that depends on what aspects you choose to highlight. If you are asking me if Rami Malek did a good job portraying Freddie Mercury, then I would reply; that is the understatement of the century. This performance is the best I've seen so far this year. There were points that I genuinely forgot that I wasn't watching the real Freddie onscreen, Malek totally disappeared into the persona and if there is any justice, the academy will recognise that come Oscar nomination time. Not only did he capture Freddie's onstage mannerisms, but even the subtle way that Freddie would shift his eyes or lick his lips during interviews etc was absolutely spot on. In terms of the singing, I believe the method used was that Malek would sing into a computer and Freddie's voice was then added over the top, then it was manipulated to where it best resembled Freddie's vocal. If this film deserves another Oscar nod, it's for the sound mixing. They managed to recreate Freddie's unique vocal range perfectly and the lip syncing is also lined up incredibly well.
The rest of the cast are great too. The rest of the band were well cast, especially Gwilym Lee as Brian May. I really enjoyed the chemistry and camaraderie between the band members too. I also enjoyed what Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander and an unrecognisable Mike Myers brought to the film. Lucy Boynton was also believable as Freddie's one true love, Mary Austin and she and Malek brought a new dimension to Mary's and Freddie's relationship that I had never really thought too much about.
Could the movie have went further than it did in terms of portraying the hedonism went on in Freddie's life? Yes, it definitely could have and that was one of my main concerns going in. I was concerned regarding the film's 12A rating and wondered how they were going to get around this and still show the sexually driven, intense life that Freddie led. Thankfully, I felt that the movie still managed to contain enough implications and allusions to the more adult stuff in the story that you were able to fill in the blanks without feeling robbed of too much of the narrative.
Unfortunately, there was a fairly important part in the movie where the sound abruptly cut out in my cinema hall for about 30 seconds, this obviously isn't the movie's fault, but it did detract from my initial viewing.
Overall, I enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody. It catalogued Queen's exceptional inventory of hits and did a fantastic job in casting the right actor to portray a modern day icon. The other actors that rounded out the cast helped to sell the whole movie and the production was very well done in terms of recreating the talent and energy that this band were famous for.
So did it meet my lofty expectations? Well, that depends on what aspects you choose to highlight. If you are asking me if Rami Malek did a good job portraying Freddie Mercury, then I would reply; that is the understatement of the century. This performance is the best I've seen so far this year. There were points that I genuinely forgot that I wasn't watching the real Freddie onscreen, Malek totally disappeared into the persona and if there is any justice, the academy will recognise that come Oscar nomination time. Not only did he capture Freddie's onstage mannerisms, but even the subtle way that Freddie would shift his eyes or lick his lips during interviews etc was absolutely spot on. In terms of the singing, I believe the method used was that Malek would sing into a computer and Freddie's voice was then added over the top, then it was manipulated to where it best resembled Freddie's vocal. If this film deserves another Oscar nod, it's for the sound mixing. They managed to recreate Freddie's unique vocal range perfectly and the lip syncing is also lined up incredibly well.
The rest of the cast are great too. The rest of the band were well cast, especially Gwilym Lee as Brian May. I really enjoyed the chemistry and camaraderie between the band members too. I also enjoyed what Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander and an unrecognisable Mike Myers brought to the film. Lucy Boynton was also believable as Freddie's one true love, Mary Austin and she and Malek brought a new dimension to Mary's and Freddie's relationship that I had never really thought too much about.
Could the movie have went further than it did in terms of portraying the hedonism went on in Freddie's life? Yes, it definitely could have and that was one of my main concerns going in. I was concerned regarding the film's 12A rating and wondered how they were going to get around this and still show the sexually driven, intense life that Freddie led. Thankfully, I felt that the movie still managed to contain enough implications and allusions to the more adult stuff in the story that you were able to fill in the blanks without feeling robbed of too much of the narrative.
Unfortunately, there was a fairly important part in the movie where the sound abruptly cut out in my cinema hall for about 30 seconds, this obviously isn't the movie's fault, but it did detract from my initial viewing.
Overall, I enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody. It catalogued Queen's exceptional inventory of hits and did a fantastic job in casting the right actor to portray a modern day icon. The other actors that rounded out the cast helped to sell the whole movie and the production was very well done in terms of recreating the talent and energy that this band were famous for.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Longest Yard (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Continuing the current trend of remakes, Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison production company set their sights on remaking the classic prison football film The Longest Yard. Like most projects that Sandler puts his Midas touch upon, this too has some moments of true gold.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Monsters! Yay! Small screen... booooooo!
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Block’s popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neeson’s growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, it’s actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If you’re expecting Taken, then you’re walking right into the wrong movie.
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Small Spaces (Small Spaces #1) in Books
Jul 29, 2019
I love creepy books, so when I came across Small Spaces by Katherine Arden, it immediately caught my attention. I don't normally read middle grade fiction, but I do make an exception for middle grade horror, and I'm really glad I had the chance to read Small Spaces.
Olivia, or Ollie as she prefers, is in middle school. She loves reading and books, so when she comes across a sobbing lady getting ready to throw a book in a river, she steals it before the woman has a chance to do so. Ollie thinks the book she stole is just a creepy ghost story, but she soon realizes it is anything but fiction! When her class goes on a field trip to a farm, Ollie realizes just how true the book is. When the field trip bus breaks down in the middle of nowhere, Ollie and two friends decided to leave the bus fearing that they may be in even worse danger if they stay on the bus. With the help of her broken watch from her deceased mother, Ollie must be very careful if she wants to return home unscathed.
I did enjoy the plot of Small Spaces. I felt like I was reading a R.L. Stine novel! Katherine Arden did such a fantastic job with this story in keeping it interesting. There were a few times were the story felt a little disjointed with what was going on as it sometimes seemed as if Small Spaces wanted to be more of a ghost story other than what it actually was. However, it was still a great plot! There was one plot twist I didn't see coming which I thought was great considering I'm an adult, and this is a middle grade story. Usually I can figure out the plot twists, but not this time! One thing that got me wondering is how all these 11 and 12 year old kids each had their own cell phone. I know it's not impossible for a whole class of junior high children to have a cell phone, but it just seems improbable. While most of my questions were answered, I was left pondering over the ending as to why more questions weren't asked by the police or the parents. Another question I had, I won't go into detail because of spoilers, but it pertained to the kids and the water. I'll just leave it at that. Although Small Spaces is a series, it can be read as a standalone as there is no cliff hanger ending.
The pacing for Small Spaces starts out a bit slow, but it picks up quickly to a fantastic pace a few chapters in. It stays at a decent pace for the majority of the book until it slows a little bit towards the ending. I wouldn't say the pacing lets the book down in any way though.
I felt all the characters in Small Spaces were written very well especially as the main characters were written as middle schoolers. I felt every character was solid. I didn't really care for Ollie's personality though. For the first half of the book, especially, she came across as a bully. As this book is aimed towards kids that are impressionable, it kind of irked me that the main character was a little mean to others. I liked Brian. I thought he seemed like he'd be a great kid in real life. I admire how he wasn't ashamed to show his emotions at certain times. My favorite character was Coco. Coco had just moved from the city to Ollie's middle school. She seemed really vulnerable, yet Ollie was mean to her a lot of the time. I just wanted to hug and protect Coco. She was such a sweet girl to everyone unlike Ollie. Coco came across as a happy go lucky girl.
Trigger warnings in Small Spaces besides being a scary story include death, minor violence, a minor profanity (one of the characters says hell), ghosts, and bullying.
All in all, Small Spaces is a fantastic scary read despite some minor flaws. It's got such a great spooky plot and characters that feel realistic. I would definitely recommend Small Spaces by Katherine Arden to everyone aged 10+ who love to be spooked! R.L. Stine better watch out; Katherine Arden could give him a run for his money judging by this book! Even though Small Spaces can stand on its own, I will definitely be reading the next book in the Small Spaces series.
---
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with an eBook of Small Spaces by Katherine Arden in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Olivia, or Ollie as she prefers, is in middle school. She loves reading and books, so when she comes across a sobbing lady getting ready to throw a book in a river, she steals it before the woman has a chance to do so. Ollie thinks the book she stole is just a creepy ghost story, but she soon realizes it is anything but fiction! When her class goes on a field trip to a farm, Ollie realizes just how true the book is. When the field trip bus breaks down in the middle of nowhere, Ollie and two friends decided to leave the bus fearing that they may be in even worse danger if they stay on the bus. With the help of her broken watch from her deceased mother, Ollie must be very careful if she wants to return home unscathed.
I did enjoy the plot of Small Spaces. I felt like I was reading a R.L. Stine novel! Katherine Arden did such a fantastic job with this story in keeping it interesting. There were a few times were the story felt a little disjointed with what was going on as it sometimes seemed as if Small Spaces wanted to be more of a ghost story other than what it actually was. However, it was still a great plot! There was one plot twist I didn't see coming which I thought was great considering I'm an adult, and this is a middle grade story. Usually I can figure out the plot twists, but not this time! One thing that got me wondering is how all these 11 and 12 year old kids each had their own cell phone. I know it's not impossible for a whole class of junior high children to have a cell phone, but it just seems improbable. While most of my questions were answered, I was left pondering over the ending as to why more questions weren't asked by the police or the parents. Another question I had, I won't go into detail because of spoilers, but it pertained to the kids and the water. I'll just leave it at that. Although Small Spaces is a series, it can be read as a standalone as there is no cliff hanger ending.
The pacing for Small Spaces starts out a bit slow, but it picks up quickly to a fantastic pace a few chapters in. It stays at a decent pace for the majority of the book until it slows a little bit towards the ending. I wouldn't say the pacing lets the book down in any way though.
I felt all the characters in Small Spaces were written very well especially as the main characters were written as middle schoolers. I felt every character was solid. I didn't really care for Ollie's personality though. For the first half of the book, especially, she came across as a bully. As this book is aimed towards kids that are impressionable, it kind of irked me that the main character was a little mean to others. I liked Brian. I thought he seemed like he'd be a great kid in real life. I admire how he wasn't ashamed to show his emotions at certain times. My favorite character was Coco. Coco had just moved from the city to Ollie's middle school. She seemed really vulnerable, yet Ollie was mean to her a lot of the time. I just wanted to hug and protect Coco. She was such a sweet girl to everyone unlike Ollie. Coco came across as a happy go lucky girl.
Trigger warnings in Small Spaces besides being a scary story include death, minor violence, a minor profanity (one of the characters says hell), ghosts, and bullying.
All in all, Small Spaces is a fantastic scary read despite some minor flaws. It's got such a great spooky plot and characters that feel realistic. I would definitely recommend Small Spaces by Katherine Arden to everyone aged 10+ who love to be spooked! R.L. Stine better watch out; Katherine Arden could give him a run for his money judging by this book! Even though Small Spaces can stand on its own, I will definitely be reading the next book in the Small Spaces series.
---
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with an eBook of Small Spaces by Katherine Arden in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Pretty Amy (Pretty Amy, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
Pretty Amy is a book that I had wanted to read for quite awhile. I was thrilled when I won a copy. However, I was disappointed when it wasn't as good as I had hoped. It's still an alright/good read though.
Amy is a seventeen year old high school senior. On the night of prom, Amy and her two best friends Cassie and Lila get stood up by their dates. They decide to forego prom and end up at the house where Lila's boyfriend lives. Since the boys aren't there, Lila decides to steal a big bag of marijuana from Brian as payback. After smoking some of it and joyriding around the time, the girls are pulled over by the police. They are charged with possession, intent to sell and sale. Amy is facing jail time but can get probation if she'll sign a paper saying it was all Cassie and Lila. Amy doesn't want to turn against her best friends, so does that mean she'll throw herself to the wolves?
The title kind of caught my eye, but after reading this book, I felt as if a better title could've been picked. Pretty Amy is what Amy's bird says throughout the book.
I think the cover is a good choice because it's a photo of what started this whole thing.
The world building is alright. I think the character of Amy makes the world building a little unbelievable, but I'll elaborate on that later. I was never a "bad kid" so I don't really have anything to compare Amy's world to. However, I knew some bad kids, and I imagine their lives would've been like Cassie's, Lila's and Amy's.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, but it definitely picked right up probably about 50 pages into the book. This is one of those books I devoured because I loved the writing style and how Burstein was able to captivate an audience.
I enjoyed the whole good girl turned bad plot. I found it interesting with what choices Amy had to make about her life. Amy used to be a good girl, but she felt invisible and just wanted to fit in with someone. She mixes with the wrong crowd, and before she knows it, she's smoking (cigarettes and weed), skipping classes, and getting in trouble at school. The plot deals with self discovery as a theme.
I had a big problem with Amy. I found her to be really, really annoying. In fact, I was going to stop reading the book because of her, but I decided to keep reading. (I'm glad I did because it was a good book). I just didn't find her to be that believable. She threw these temper tantrums that I've never known any senior in high school to throw. She acted more like a spoiled 10 year old than a 17 year old. And while I understand that she was a moody teenager whose future was uncertain, she still came across as being really young as well as annoying. However, I did relate to her with the whole feeling invisible and just plain. I felt and still feel the same way. Ultimately, I was too annoyed with her to really connect, so I found myself not caring if she want to jail. We don't really get to see much of Cassie and Lila past the first few chapters. Cassie didn't feel like a real character either because I felt like the author was trying too hard to make Cassie seem like a bad girl. I was indifferent about Lila although she felt more realistic then Cassie and Amy. Amy's mom seemed to just cry the whole time which I found annoying as well. I don't think anyone cries as much as that woman did! I did like Amy's dad though. I loved how supportive he was of Amy and how helpful he was. I also liked Joe although I wish we would've got to read a bit more about him.
Some of the dialogue did feel forced, especially when it involved swearing. There was so much swearing in that book, and it just felt a bit over the top. However, minus the swearing, I did enjoy some of the snarky comments by Amy the most even if some were a bit immature.
Overall, Pretty Amy by Lisa Burstein was enjoyable to read as strange as it may sound with how annoyed I was with Amy. I don't really know what it was, but I did like this book. I think if Amy had acted more like a 17 year old then a tween, it would've been a lot better.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ (due to language) who are after an interesting contemporary novel.
I'd give Pretty Amy (Pretty Amy #1) by Lisa Burstein a 3.5 out of 5.
Pretty Amy is a book that I had wanted to read for quite awhile. I was thrilled when I won a copy. However, I was disappointed when it wasn't as good as I had hoped. It's still an alright/good read though.
Amy is a seventeen year old high school senior. On the night of prom, Amy and her two best friends Cassie and Lila get stood up by their dates. They decide to forego prom and end up at the house where Lila's boyfriend lives. Since the boys aren't there, Lila decides to steal a big bag of marijuana from Brian as payback. After smoking some of it and joyriding around the time, the girls are pulled over by the police. They are charged with possession, intent to sell and sale. Amy is facing jail time but can get probation if she'll sign a paper saying it was all Cassie and Lila. Amy doesn't want to turn against her best friends, so does that mean she'll throw herself to the wolves?
The title kind of caught my eye, but after reading this book, I felt as if a better title could've been picked. Pretty Amy is what Amy's bird says throughout the book.
I think the cover is a good choice because it's a photo of what started this whole thing.
The world building is alright. I think the character of Amy makes the world building a little unbelievable, but I'll elaborate on that later. I was never a "bad kid" so I don't really have anything to compare Amy's world to. However, I knew some bad kids, and I imagine their lives would've been like Cassie's, Lila's and Amy's.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, but it definitely picked right up probably about 50 pages into the book. This is one of those books I devoured because I loved the writing style and how Burstein was able to captivate an audience.
I enjoyed the whole good girl turned bad plot. I found it interesting with what choices Amy had to make about her life. Amy used to be a good girl, but she felt invisible and just wanted to fit in with someone. She mixes with the wrong crowd, and before she knows it, she's smoking (cigarettes and weed), skipping classes, and getting in trouble at school. The plot deals with self discovery as a theme.
I had a big problem with Amy. I found her to be really, really annoying. In fact, I was going to stop reading the book because of her, but I decided to keep reading. (I'm glad I did because it was a good book). I just didn't find her to be that believable. She threw these temper tantrums that I've never known any senior in high school to throw. She acted more like a spoiled 10 year old than a 17 year old. And while I understand that she was a moody teenager whose future was uncertain, she still came across as being really young as well as annoying. However, I did relate to her with the whole feeling invisible and just plain. I felt and still feel the same way. Ultimately, I was too annoyed with her to really connect, so I found myself not caring if she want to jail. We don't really get to see much of Cassie and Lila past the first few chapters. Cassie didn't feel like a real character either because I felt like the author was trying too hard to make Cassie seem like a bad girl. I was indifferent about Lila although she felt more realistic then Cassie and Amy. Amy's mom seemed to just cry the whole time which I found annoying as well. I don't think anyone cries as much as that woman did! I did like Amy's dad though. I loved how supportive he was of Amy and how helpful he was. I also liked Joe although I wish we would've got to read a bit more about him.
Some of the dialogue did feel forced, especially when it involved swearing. There was so much swearing in that book, and it just felt a bit over the top. However, minus the swearing, I did enjoy some of the snarky comments by Amy the most even if some were a bit immature.
Overall, Pretty Amy by Lisa Burstein was enjoyable to read as strange as it may sound with how annoyed I was with Amy. I don't really know what it was, but I did like this book. I think if Amy had acted more like a 17 year old then a tween, it would've been a lot better.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ (due to language) who are after an interesting contemporary novel.
I'd give Pretty Amy (Pretty Amy #1) by Lisa Burstein a 3.5 out of 5.