Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated In The Shadow of Blackbirds in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Call of Duty: Ghosts - Onslaught in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Call of Duty: Ghosts gets a much needed update with the release of Onslaught, the first of four planned DLC packs for the game.
The new content requires the full version of Ghosts to play and offers up a plethora of content including four new maps, a dual mode weapon, and a new episode of the alien invasion game, Extinction.
For me Ghosts was filled with frustration on the multiplay side as I found many maps were too large and encouraged camping, which as anyone who has been spawn killed numerous times in a row will tell you, leads quickly to frustration.
First off the new Maverick Assault rifle offers power and a high rate of fire for up close and personal combat. For those wanting to do their dirty work from afar, there is also a sniper rifle customization that will give fans of sniper action plenty of options.
The new maps are some of the most fun I have had in Ghosts and for me, were more enjoyable than many of the maps that shipped with the game as they allow for multiple styles of gameplay.
Bayview
Is a whimsical and fun map set in a California Coastal town. It is great for close quarters and run and gun gamers like myself, but has plenty of tactical spots for those that like ranged attacks. The great thing about the map is that it is lots of fun to play.
Running through gift shops, restaurants, the aquarium, and other tourists locales made this a very fun and engaging map. The action is intense and you can even take a ride on the trolley car that roams the boardwalk. One inspired gamer but his Sentry Gun on the car and watched as it road up and down the map picking off enemies that dared get near the tram.
I loved seeing the naval units off on the horizon in a pitched battle which made me think of the action in Modern Warfare 3.
Containment
This is a battle in an abandoned Mexican village after a truck has crashed and spilled nuclear material. The combat is on two levels on two sides of the town with a No Man’s Land in the middle in the guise of a partially destroyed bridge.
From a bar, a church, and the streets, the action is intense in both ranged and close-quarter combat and the map offers plenty of charm and diversity.
Some like to snipe from the windows while others like myself like to sneak their way across and battle in the blasted out bars and shops of the town.
Ignition
Set in an abandoned launch facility I had to dodge firing rockets, sniper fire, and all manner of nooks and hiding spaces for enemy units to attack me from. This is a large map that is spread out but there are some great areas for players to get results with a little planning.
The map has long corridors that provide plenty of options to snipers but also numerous options in which to flank and attack. There is even a plane fuselage for players to travel through as well as plenty of multilevel and cover laden office buildings and labs.
The rockets will randomly fire and setting off either of the two engines will result in some great things happening to the enemy units and with careful planning, players can blast away while they run for cover.
Fog
This is a creepy and quirky map that is set in a swamp like area complete with caves, fog, shacks, and uneven terrain. At first I did not like it as although nice to look at, it seemed to encourage camping and sniping. My thoughts on the map changed the next time through thanks to the run and gun style of play that was going on. Suddenly I heard the familiar music from “Halloween”, and Michael Myers himself appeared and dispatched me and several of my team with an axe.
Several shots and grenades did not slow Myers down at all so I learned it is best to stay away from him or simply accept multiple deaths while he is on the map, unless you can get several shots off while he is busy dispatching others.
If a player completes a certain Field Order, they become Myers and the music will let everyone know to prepare.
For fans of Extinction, there is a new episode called Nightfall which introduces two new alien threats as well as a new weapon and challenges for players to survive as it is a highly enjoyable adventure. This content actually builds on the whole experience and to me seemed like a vital and necessary part rather than a simple bonus map.
I can honestly say that this is the most fun I have had with any of the DLC for Call of Duty as while I have enjoyed maps in the past, I have not had a collection where I enjoyed playing all the maps as much as I have this one and what is a bigger surprise to me is how much it has restored the fun and enjoyment that was missing in Ghosts for me as for the first time since Black Ops 2, I am eager to get back to the fight and level up my character.
While hit counts, play balance, and hackers still hamper the game, the review is for the new content and not the game as a whole and as such, Onslaught delivers in a big way.
Activision recently announced that the second DLC pack named Devastation will appear on the Xbox Consoles in April with the PS 3 and PC versions to follow.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/09/call-of-duty-onslaught/
The new content requires the full version of Ghosts to play and offers up a plethora of content including four new maps, a dual mode weapon, and a new episode of the alien invasion game, Extinction.
For me Ghosts was filled with frustration on the multiplay side as I found many maps were too large and encouraged camping, which as anyone who has been spawn killed numerous times in a row will tell you, leads quickly to frustration.
First off the new Maverick Assault rifle offers power and a high rate of fire for up close and personal combat. For those wanting to do their dirty work from afar, there is also a sniper rifle customization that will give fans of sniper action plenty of options.
The new maps are some of the most fun I have had in Ghosts and for me, were more enjoyable than many of the maps that shipped with the game as they allow for multiple styles of gameplay.
Bayview
Is a whimsical and fun map set in a California Coastal town. It is great for close quarters and run and gun gamers like myself, but has plenty of tactical spots for those that like ranged attacks. The great thing about the map is that it is lots of fun to play.
Running through gift shops, restaurants, the aquarium, and other tourists locales made this a very fun and engaging map. The action is intense and you can even take a ride on the trolley car that roams the boardwalk. One inspired gamer but his Sentry Gun on the car and watched as it road up and down the map picking off enemies that dared get near the tram.
I loved seeing the naval units off on the horizon in a pitched battle which made me think of the action in Modern Warfare 3.
Containment
This is a battle in an abandoned Mexican village after a truck has crashed and spilled nuclear material. The combat is on two levels on two sides of the town with a No Man’s Land in the middle in the guise of a partially destroyed bridge.
From a bar, a church, and the streets, the action is intense in both ranged and close-quarter combat and the map offers plenty of charm and diversity.
Some like to snipe from the windows while others like myself like to sneak their way across and battle in the blasted out bars and shops of the town.
Ignition
Set in an abandoned launch facility I had to dodge firing rockets, sniper fire, and all manner of nooks and hiding spaces for enemy units to attack me from. This is a large map that is spread out but there are some great areas for players to get results with a little planning.
The map has long corridors that provide plenty of options to snipers but also numerous options in which to flank and attack. There is even a plane fuselage for players to travel through as well as plenty of multilevel and cover laden office buildings and labs.
The rockets will randomly fire and setting off either of the two engines will result in some great things happening to the enemy units and with careful planning, players can blast away while they run for cover.
Fog
This is a creepy and quirky map that is set in a swamp like area complete with caves, fog, shacks, and uneven terrain. At first I did not like it as although nice to look at, it seemed to encourage camping and sniping. My thoughts on the map changed the next time through thanks to the run and gun style of play that was going on. Suddenly I heard the familiar music from “Halloween”, and Michael Myers himself appeared and dispatched me and several of my team with an axe.
Several shots and grenades did not slow Myers down at all so I learned it is best to stay away from him or simply accept multiple deaths while he is on the map, unless you can get several shots off while he is busy dispatching others.
If a player completes a certain Field Order, they become Myers and the music will let everyone know to prepare.
For fans of Extinction, there is a new episode called Nightfall which introduces two new alien threats as well as a new weapon and challenges for players to survive as it is a highly enjoyable adventure. This content actually builds on the whole experience and to me seemed like a vital and necessary part rather than a simple bonus map.
I can honestly say that this is the most fun I have had with any of the DLC for Call of Duty as while I have enjoyed maps in the past, I have not had a collection where I enjoyed playing all the maps as much as I have this one and what is a bigger surprise to me is how much it has restored the fun and enjoyment that was missing in Ghosts for me as for the first time since Black Ops 2, I am eager to get back to the fight and level up my character.
While hit counts, play balance, and hackers still hamper the game, the review is for the new content and not the game as a whole and as such, Onslaught delivers in a big way.
Activision recently announced that the second DLC pack named Devastation will appear on the Xbox Consoles in April with the PS 3 and PC versions to follow.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/09/call-of-duty-onslaught/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Formula 51 (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The 51st State starts in 1971 California where Elmo McElroy (Jackson) getting caught smoking weed losing he recently receive diploma in pharmacy. Move forward 30 years Elmo works as a drug maker for The Lizard (Meat Loaf). We learn that Dakota (Mortimer) owes The Lizard a debt which she pays off with her assassin skills. Elmo has taken it upon himself to escape The Lizard but he doesn’t get the job done, this leads to The Lizard giving Dakota a chance to clean her slate for good by sending her to kill Elmo and the drug dealer who never turned up for the deal Durant (Tomlinson).
Next we meet Felix DeSouza (Carlyle) a fellow dealer who is happy to live in Manchester while cheering for Liverpool putting him into conflict when he doesn’t need too. Felix has to deliver Elmo to Durant to help with the latest deal as Elmo brings his product to England but to keep things interesting Dakota just so happens to be Felix’s ex make the assassination attempt difficult due to the personal side.
It is up to Felix and Elmo to try and work out a deal in the city before the time runs out with Dakota trying to track down Elmo to for The Lizard. All this while determined detective Kane (Pertwee) want in on the action and to stop the deal taking place. All these factors lead to the final outcome of the film when we find out just who is playing who.
The 51st State is a film that really made me want to switch it off very early because the needless amount of swearing and aggressive toning of the language just seemed to be there because someone couldn’t think of any real words. I wasn’t the most interested in this film because of the heavy drug use either because I feel drugs over use makes people out to stupid because not everyone needs drugs but the films seems to make the point everyone does. After getting through the opening half of the film and getting used the poorly written script the story does unfold to be quite interesting. We get plenty of twists and turn along the way and the final twist does actually make you smile because of how Elmo has handled it all. (5/10)
Actor Review
Samuel L Jackson: Elmo McElroy is the most wanted chemist in the world of drugs, he decides to leave his old market behind and take his work to England where he gets stuck in the middle of a battle for power between the drug lords. Samuel does end up giving us a performance you would expect but his image if something that will shock with his kilt. (7/10)
elmo
Robert Carlyle: Felix DeSouza is the hot head Liverpool fan who works for a drug lord in the city but when things get out of hand he has to help settle the deal for Elmo and his price tickets to Liverpool v Manchester United. Robert gives the performance you would expect from the British star. (7/10)
robert
Emily Mortimer: Dakota Parker is the deadly beautiful assassin who is working off a debt from The Lizard, she has history with Felix but is working on catching Elmo for The Lizard. Emily does a good job as the assassin with a past. (7/10)
dakota
Meat Loaf: The Lizard is the American drug lord that has been double crossed by Elmo but he isn’t taking it lightly when he sends his best assassin to bring him back to complete the business deal they had going down. Meat Loaf does end up giving a performance you wouldn’t expect from the musician. (7/10)
Rhys Ifans: Iki is the local dealer who can help get the deal done in Liverpool once everything gets out of hand. He is playing both sides because he is the go to guy in the city. Rhys is one of the best over the top crazy performers in the acting work and he shows why here. (7/10)
ike
Support Cast: The 51st State has a supporting cast that includes plenty of different characters involved in the drug world that all help motive our characters.
Director Review: Ronny Yu – Ronny does try to give us a crime caper but does he need to just have the characters swearing for the sake of it. (5/10)
Action: The 51st State has a couple of fights but most of the action is almost happening. (5/10)
Crime: The 51st State puts us in a drug world well giving us a mixture of colourful characters. (8/10)
Thriller: The 51st State doesn’t pull you in as much as it should because we think everything is done and dusted early on and by the time it has changed we are not sure what to think. (6/10)
Settings: The 51st State uses the setting of Liverpool very well making everything feel like a normal day with the crime happening around it. (8/10)
Suggestion: The 51st State is one to try, I think if you are a fan of the genre you will enjoy but otherwise it might end up feeling like too much. (Try It)
Best Part: Final deal.
Worst Part: Too much needless aggressive swearing.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Early on in the credits.
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: In a world of shady characters and dirty deals, this is just business as usual.
Overall: This is a typical over aggressive drug filled film that has a twist that makes it more enjoyable.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/12/11/the-51st-state-2001/
Next we meet Felix DeSouza (Carlyle) a fellow dealer who is happy to live in Manchester while cheering for Liverpool putting him into conflict when he doesn’t need too. Felix has to deliver Elmo to Durant to help with the latest deal as Elmo brings his product to England but to keep things interesting Dakota just so happens to be Felix’s ex make the assassination attempt difficult due to the personal side.
It is up to Felix and Elmo to try and work out a deal in the city before the time runs out with Dakota trying to track down Elmo to for The Lizard. All this while determined detective Kane (Pertwee) want in on the action and to stop the deal taking place. All these factors lead to the final outcome of the film when we find out just who is playing who.
The 51st State is a film that really made me want to switch it off very early because the needless amount of swearing and aggressive toning of the language just seemed to be there because someone couldn’t think of any real words. I wasn’t the most interested in this film because of the heavy drug use either because I feel drugs over use makes people out to stupid because not everyone needs drugs but the films seems to make the point everyone does. After getting through the opening half of the film and getting used the poorly written script the story does unfold to be quite interesting. We get plenty of twists and turn along the way and the final twist does actually make you smile because of how Elmo has handled it all. (5/10)
Actor Review
Samuel L Jackson: Elmo McElroy is the most wanted chemist in the world of drugs, he decides to leave his old market behind and take his work to England where he gets stuck in the middle of a battle for power between the drug lords. Samuel does end up giving us a performance you would expect but his image if something that will shock with his kilt. (7/10)
elmo
Robert Carlyle: Felix DeSouza is the hot head Liverpool fan who works for a drug lord in the city but when things get out of hand he has to help settle the deal for Elmo and his price tickets to Liverpool v Manchester United. Robert gives the performance you would expect from the British star. (7/10)
robert
Emily Mortimer: Dakota Parker is the deadly beautiful assassin who is working off a debt from The Lizard, she has history with Felix but is working on catching Elmo for The Lizard. Emily does a good job as the assassin with a past. (7/10)
dakota
Meat Loaf: The Lizard is the American drug lord that has been double crossed by Elmo but he isn’t taking it lightly when he sends his best assassin to bring him back to complete the business deal they had going down. Meat Loaf does end up giving a performance you wouldn’t expect from the musician. (7/10)
Rhys Ifans: Iki is the local dealer who can help get the deal done in Liverpool once everything gets out of hand. He is playing both sides because he is the go to guy in the city. Rhys is one of the best over the top crazy performers in the acting work and he shows why here. (7/10)
ike
Support Cast: The 51st State has a supporting cast that includes plenty of different characters involved in the drug world that all help motive our characters.
Director Review: Ronny Yu – Ronny does try to give us a crime caper but does he need to just have the characters swearing for the sake of it. (5/10)
Action: The 51st State has a couple of fights but most of the action is almost happening. (5/10)
Crime: The 51st State puts us in a drug world well giving us a mixture of colourful characters. (8/10)
Thriller: The 51st State doesn’t pull you in as much as it should because we think everything is done and dusted early on and by the time it has changed we are not sure what to think. (6/10)
Settings: The 51st State uses the setting of Liverpool very well making everything feel like a normal day with the crime happening around it. (8/10)
Suggestion: The 51st State is one to try, I think if you are a fan of the genre you will enjoy but otherwise it might end up feeling like too much. (Try It)
Best Part: Final deal.
Worst Part: Too much needless aggressive swearing.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Early on in the credits.
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: In a world of shady characters and dirty deals, this is just business as usual.
Overall: This is a typical over aggressive drug filled film that has a twist that makes it more enjoyable.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/12/11/the-51st-state-2001/
TM
The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution
Book
In the tradition of Theodore White's landmark books, the definitive look at how Donald J. Trump...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.