Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Prisoner of Heaven in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>The Prisoner of Heaven</i> by Carlos Ruiz Zafón is part of a cycle of novels known collectively as <i>The Cemetery of Forgotten Books</i>. At the moment there are three books (the other two being <i>The Shadow of the Wind</i> and <i>The Angel’s Game</i>) and they are all independent stories whose characters and themes overlap, meaning that they can be read in any order. Despite this I think it that you would get more out of each story if you read them in order of publication.
My experience of <i>The Prisoner of Heaven</i> would be different from those who have not read the previous two books. I read <i>The Shadow of the Wind</i> when I was quite young and, although I probably did not understand it that well, I was able to recognize and understand certain references to that particular storyline. I have also read <i>The Angel’s Game</i> – also a number of years ago, which I found quite terrifying – which meant I had the background knowledge of a particular character. Having said that, Zafón provides enough information for new readers to understand what is going on.
The story is written in several parts beginning in Barcelona at Christmas in 1957. The sections set during this time period are narrated by Daniel Sempere (the main character from <i>The Shadow of the Wind</i>) who works alongside his father in the bookshop <i>Sempere & Sons</i>. One day a mysterious customer buys and leaves a copy of an expensive novel for Daniel’s friend and work colleague Fermín Romero de Torres. This leads us to the middle sections, the key part of the plot in which, told in third person narrative in order to differentiate from the “current day” (1957), we discover the character Fermín’s past and who the mysterious customer was. David Martín, the main character in <i>The Angel’s Game</i>, makes a significant appearance in this part.
During the remaining parts, told once again from Daniel’s point of view, I kept expecting something major to happen as I did not feel that the novel had reached it’s climax. But nothing happened which was slightly disappointing (although I was also relieved as I feared I would find this book scary as I did with <i>The Angel’s Game</i> – I didn’t). However I do believe that the final book in this cycle will continue with and tie up the loose ends in <i>The Prisoner of Heaven</i> – another reason to have read the books in order in my view.
Overall I enjoyed the book. I definitely prefer it to <i>The Angel’s Game</i>, which I found confusing and slightly unnerving. I cannot compare it easily with <i>The Shadow of the Wind</i> for, as already mentioned, it has been such a long time since I read it. I would certainly recommend this book (and series) particularly to those who enjoy historical fiction and mysteries.
My experience of <i>The Prisoner of Heaven</i> would be different from those who have not read the previous two books. I read <i>The Shadow of the Wind</i> when I was quite young and, although I probably did not understand it that well, I was able to recognize and understand certain references to that particular storyline. I have also read <i>The Angel’s Game</i> – also a number of years ago, which I found quite terrifying – which meant I had the background knowledge of a particular character. Having said that, Zafón provides enough information for new readers to understand what is going on.
The story is written in several parts beginning in Barcelona at Christmas in 1957. The sections set during this time period are narrated by Daniel Sempere (the main character from <i>The Shadow of the Wind</i>) who works alongside his father in the bookshop <i>Sempere & Sons</i>. One day a mysterious customer buys and leaves a copy of an expensive novel for Daniel’s friend and work colleague Fermín Romero de Torres. This leads us to the middle sections, the key part of the plot in which, told in third person narrative in order to differentiate from the “current day” (1957), we discover the character Fermín’s past and who the mysterious customer was. David Martín, the main character in <i>The Angel’s Game</i>, makes a significant appearance in this part.
During the remaining parts, told once again from Daniel’s point of view, I kept expecting something major to happen as I did not feel that the novel had reached it’s climax. But nothing happened which was slightly disappointing (although I was also relieved as I feared I would find this book scary as I did with <i>The Angel’s Game</i> – I didn’t). However I do believe that the final book in this cycle will continue with and tie up the loose ends in <i>The Prisoner of Heaven</i> – another reason to have read the books in order in my view.
Overall I enjoyed the book. I definitely prefer it to <i>The Angel’s Game</i>, which I found confusing and slightly unnerving. I cannot compare it easily with <i>The Shadow of the Wind</i> for, as already mentioned, it has been such a long time since I read it. I would certainly recommend this book (and series) particularly to those who enjoy historical fiction and mysteries.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
The Mexican Legend
The Curse of La Llorona is a 2019 supernatura/horror movie directed by Michael Chaves and written by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis. The film was produced by James Wan through his Atomic Monster Productions. It is based on the Mexican folklore, is Chaves directorial debut, and is set in "The Conjuring" Universe. It stars Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, and Patricia Velasquez.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) in Movies
Nov 16, 2020
The first 10 or so minutes of Resident Evil: Apocalypse are quite good. Raccoon City in panic, Jill Valentine and Carlos Oliveira, a few mentions of this movies big bad - an adaption of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is something I am keen for. The whole set up isn't too bad, and then we get to a scene set in a church, Jill Valentine surrounded by Lickers, completely out of ammo, and then...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Anchor & Hope (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A heart-wrenching portrait of parenthood & sexuality
Deciding to have a baby is a big step in many couples’ lives, but sometimes, things don’t always go according to plan. Carlos Marques-Marcet’s Anchor and Hope follows two lesbian women who, one drunken night, decide to use their friend’s sperm in order to have a child of their own. It’s not a decision that should be taken lightly, but makes for an interesting story nonetheless. Insemination is a viable option that is often considered by those in same-sex relationships, or by those who struggle to conceive. This is the first film I’ve seen that deals with the subject so explicitly.
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
2004 has been the year of the Zombie film. from the remake of “Dawn of the Dead”, to the upcoming “Shaun of the Dead”, the walking dead have been big business at the box office. In the new film “Resident Evil Apocalypse”, the Zombie genre takes a few new twists with the inclusion of the evil corporation and science going horribly wrong.
Picking up where the last film ended, the underground compound of the Umbrella Corporation has been destroyed by a virus that was unleashed in an accident causing the dead to reanimate and go on a rampage of carnage and destruction.
Alice (Milla Jovovich), was one of two survivors of the first film and finds herself waking in an empty lab with her last memories of her and the other survivor being removed from her and detained by agents of the corporation. Making her way to the surface, Alice discovers that Racoon City has been evacuated and barricaded by the company trapping some survivors inside the ravaged city.
At the same time, a group of survivors has taken up refuge in a church, they are headed by police officer Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), who is watching over a fellow officer who has been bitten by a zombie and a reporter who sees the tragic events as the key to her career success. Alice soon meets up with the group and they battle the strange manner of creatures who surround them as they attempt to make their way out of the city.
A combat team headed by Carlos Olivera (Oded Fehr), is also trapped in the city and they soon meet up with Alice and the other survivors. It is learned that Alice has been enhanced by the company and her amazing strength and agility are by design of the company. It is also discovered that an unstoppable creature known as Nemesis is on the lose and is destroying everything it encounters. As if this is not enough to worry about, Alice reveals that at dawn the company will destroy the infected city with a nuclear device and blame it on a faulty reactor. Faced with legions of the walking dead, Nemesis, and the coming nuclear blast, the survivors are in a severe situation. A way out arrives when a scientist informs the group that if they recover his daughter from a nearby school, he will direct them to a helicopter and out of the doomed city. What follows is a race against time as the team must battle the odds to survive.
Although slow and predictable to start, the film does gain speed and the last 20 minutes of the film are very entertaining and set the stage well for a potential third chapter in the series. The FX in the film is interesting if not ground breaking and the action is well staged and interesting. The action is not bad though nothing spectacular though Jovovich gives a very energetic performance. The film does have a few chills in it as people at my press screener people in the audience jumped on more than one occasion. The script by Paul Anderson is better then the first film in the series though Anderson chose to direct “Alien VS Predator” instead of this film, and despite its early missteps it is an improvement upon the original film and should delight fans as it is a worthy new step in the series.
Picking up where the last film ended, the underground compound of the Umbrella Corporation has been destroyed by a virus that was unleashed in an accident causing the dead to reanimate and go on a rampage of carnage and destruction.
Alice (Milla Jovovich), was one of two survivors of the first film and finds herself waking in an empty lab with her last memories of her and the other survivor being removed from her and detained by agents of the corporation. Making her way to the surface, Alice discovers that Racoon City has been evacuated and barricaded by the company trapping some survivors inside the ravaged city.
At the same time, a group of survivors has taken up refuge in a church, they are headed by police officer Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), who is watching over a fellow officer who has been bitten by a zombie and a reporter who sees the tragic events as the key to her career success. Alice soon meets up with the group and they battle the strange manner of creatures who surround them as they attempt to make their way out of the city.
A combat team headed by Carlos Olivera (Oded Fehr), is also trapped in the city and they soon meet up with Alice and the other survivors. It is learned that Alice has been enhanced by the company and her amazing strength and agility are by design of the company. It is also discovered that an unstoppable creature known as Nemesis is on the lose and is destroying everything it encounters. As if this is not enough to worry about, Alice reveals that at dawn the company will destroy the infected city with a nuclear device and blame it on a faulty reactor. Faced with legions of the walking dead, Nemesis, and the coming nuclear blast, the survivors are in a severe situation. A way out arrives when a scientist informs the group that if they recover his daughter from a nearby school, he will direct them to a helicopter and out of the doomed city. What follows is a race against time as the team must battle the odds to survive.
Although slow and predictable to start, the film does gain speed and the last 20 minutes of the film are very entertaining and set the stage well for a potential third chapter in the series. The FX in the film is interesting if not ground breaking and the action is well staged and interesting. The action is not bad though nothing spectacular though Jovovich gives a very energetic performance. The film does have a few chills in it as people at my press screener people in the audience jumped on more than one occasion. The script by Paul Anderson is better then the first film in the series though Anderson chose to direct “Alien VS Predator” instead of this film, and despite its early missteps it is an improvement upon the original film and should delight fans as it is a worthy new step in the series.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Snitch (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I’m a huge fan of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. His wrestling persona is
extremely entertaining and he’s a pretty decent actor. He did good with this movie but it wasn’t enough.
The premise of the movie is based on ‘true events’ (whatever that
means), it’s more about a law that’s real in our country right now, I’ll get in to that later.
There are a lot of characters so stick with me. The Rock plays John
Matthews, he owns his own construction business. He has an ex-wife, Sylvie Collins played by Melina Kanakaredes, and a current wife, Analisa played by Nadine Velazquez.
Johnand Analisa
have a daughter Isabella and he has a son with Sylvie, Jason Collins played by Rafi Gavron. The other major players are Barry Pepper who plays undercover DEA agent Cooper; Susan Sarandon who plays Joanne Keeghan a US Attorney; Jon Bernthal
who plays Daniel James an ex-con trying to get his life back together; Michael Kenneth Williams who plays Malik, a drug dealer; and Benjamin Bratt who plays Cartel leader Juan Carlos. Out of all of these, I liked Daniel, Agent Cooper, John Matthews, Malik and
Joanne Keeghan, in that order.
The law the movie is based on is about mandatory minimums. If you are
holding and it’s enough to distribute then you go to jail. The length of your jail time is based on how
much you are holding when you’re caught. In this case, Jason, who is 18 and still in high
school, is set up by his ‘best friend’. This friend sends him a huge bag of ecstasy against Jason’s wishes.
When the package arrives Jason gets caught because it’s a
sting. His jail time based on the amount of ecstasy is ten years in a prison that holds murderers, rapist and violent criminals.
The movie starts excruciatingly slow, the real action doesn’t start until
almost halfway through, or at least it felt like it. It’s good once you get there but I wasn’t really into
the people in it/living it. I kept thinking of the actors as themselves not the characters
they were playing, even the ones I liked. There were too many close ups and‘in action’ scenes that involved someone with a camera running or walking next to the actor.
I getthat it was to try and build apprehension and anxiety but it was more annoying and kept pulling me out of the story so I couldn’t connect emotionally with the characters.
I didn’t believe the union between John and Analisa or that there had been one with Sylvie, there was no familiarity and I didn’t believe the love or tension between them.
John was a business man who’s never seen action so he’s kind of a wuss, but it’s the Rock, a huge tall muscle-y intense looking guy. Whenever he flinched I kept waiting for him to kick ass but he never does.
Then in another scene he’s magically badass, shooting
a shotgun one handed out of the window of a semi-truck he’s driving.
The movie was more about showing people this heinous law then entertainingus. I don’t like that, it’s not why I go to movies. The only saving grace would have been if it had been really entertaining but it was only mildly entertaining at best.
I’d say rent it if you like the Rock or if you’re curious, it wouldn’t be too much of a waste of your time but
definitely don’t waste your money in a theatre.
extremely entertaining and he’s a pretty decent actor. He did good with this movie but it wasn’t enough.
The premise of the movie is based on ‘true events’ (whatever that
means), it’s more about a law that’s real in our country right now, I’ll get in to that later.
There are a lot of characters so stick with me. The Rock plays John
Matthews, he owns his own construction business. He has an ex-wife, Sylvie Collins played by Melina Kanakaredes, and a current wife, Analisa played by Nadine Velazquez.
Johnand Analisa
have a daughter Isabella and he has a son with Sylvie, Jason Collins played by Rafi Gavron. The other major players are Barry Pepper who plays undercover DEA agent Cooper; Susan Sarandon who plays Joanne Keeghan a US Attorney; Jon Bernthal
who plays Daniel James an ex-con trying to get his life back together; Michael Kenneth Williams who plays Malik, a drug dealer; and Benjamin Bratt who plays Cartel leader Juan Carlos. Out of all of these, I liked Daniel, Agent Cooper, John Matthews, Malik and
Joanne Keeghan, in that order.
The law the movie is based on is about mandatory minimums. If you are
holding and it’s enough to distribute then you go to jail. The length of your jail time is based on how
much you are holding when you’re caught. In this case, Jason, who is 18 and still in high
school, is set up by his ‘best friend’. This friend sends him a huge bag of ecstasy against Jason’s wishes.
When the package arrives Jason gets caught because it’s a
sting. His jail time based on the amount of ecstasy is ten years in a prison that holds murderers, rapist and violent criminals.
The movie starts excruciatingly slow, the real action doesn’t start until
almost halfway through, or at least it felt like it. It’s good once you get there but I wasn’t really into
the people in it/living it. I kept thinking of the actors as themselves not the characters
they were playing, even the ones I liked. There were too many close ups and‘in action’ scenes that involved someone with a camera running or walking next to the actor.
I getthat it was to try and build apprehension and anxiety but it was more annoying and kept pulling me out of the story so I couldn’t connect emotionally with the characters.
I didn’t believe the union between John and Analisa or that there had been one with Sylvie, there was no familiarity and I didn’t believe the love or tension between them.
John was a business man who’s never seen action so he’s kind of a wuss, but it’s the Rock, a huge tall muscle-y intense looking guy. Whenever he flinched I kept waiting for him to kick ass but he never does.
Then in another scene he’s magically badass, shooting
a shotgun one handed out of the window of a semi-truck he’s driving.
The movie was more about showing people this heinous law then entertainingus. I don’t like that, it’s not why I go to movies. The only saving grace would have been if it had been really entertaining but it was only mildly entertaining at best.
I’d say rent it if you like the Rock or if you’re curious, it wouldn’t be too much of a waste of your time but
definitely don’t waste your money in a theatre.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Phoenix Resurrection: The Return of Jean Grey in Books
Nov 30, 2020
So, confession time, I had bought this on a Comixology sale a couple months before the whole "Death of the X-Men", etc., etc. I was not really following the recent X-debacles, but I am a Jean Grey fan from way (like when the whole "Dark Phoenix Saga" was coming out for the first time. Yeah, I'm OLD! lol) and well, I had pretty high hopes, y'know?
Unfortunately, I could not get into it at the time. Mind you, this was all pre-"Dawn of X"; as I am starting a big "Dawn of X" re-visit from HoX/PoX up to present, only without the dumpster fire that was FALLEN ANGELS, it made sense to try this one again! And, as I read it all in one afternoon, it's needless to say, but I am hella glad I did!
---
When I started reading it at first, I was apprehensive, as I saw some of Bendis' O5 X-Men were in it. It would appear my "apprehensive[ness]" was not really necessary as the O5 members included really had no memorable role to the story.
Matthew Rosenberg is an author's name I had heard in passing but had never had an occasion to read anything he'd written. Before embarking on this tale, I read Rosenberg's NEW MUTANTS: DEAD SOULS, giving me a taste (which I liked despite the unresolved cliffhanger ending) of his writing style and how he would handle writing for mutants.
I really liked his treatment of the characters! Beast felt in character, as did nearly everyone else. Even Old Man Logan, who was a great character in Millar's miniseries but who felt like a guest who didn't really know when to go home, was quite likable, bringing some real feels to the story, and the story's ending.
Do I think this was the worst way to bring back Jean? Good Lord, no! There have been a few other occasions over the years, which were closer to that notion! But this story? Yeah, it made sense (like <b>that</b> ever happens in comics!), giving Jean a return that felt proper as well as some genuine caring for her character's history as a whole!
And how about that art? WOW! I am not what you'd call a fan of Leinil Francis Yu's art style, finding it to be too "sketchy" at times. However, in the issues he turned in (Issues 1 and 5) were unlike any I had ever seen him draw before! While the other issues from Carlos Pacheco (Issue 2)Illustrator), Ramon Rosanas (Issue 4) and Joe Bennett (Issue 3 and Issue 5, alongside Yu) all seemed to tie together perfectly, never once swaying in art style, helping the story to remain visually consistent for all five of the issues of the the mini-series!
At the end of the day, I can find very little, if anything, to gripe about with PHOENIX RESURRECTION: THE RETURN OF JEAN GREY! It's a solid story that is all about characters we have grown up with and loved, as well as more than hearty helping of the feels! And, really, at the end of the day, isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Peace.
Unfortunately, I could not get into it at the time. Mind you, this was all pre-"Dawn of X"; as I am starting a big "Dawn of X" re-visit from HoX/PoX up to present, only without the dumpster fire that was FALLEN ANGELS, it made sense to try this one again! And, as I read it all in one afternoon, it's needless to say, but I am hella glad I did!
---
When I started reading it at first, I was apprehensive, as I saw some of Bendis' O5 X-Men were in it. It would appear my "apprehensive[ness]" was not really necessary as the O5 members included really had no memorable role to the story.
Matthew Rosenberg is an author's name I had heard in passing but had never had an occasion to read anything he'd written. Before embarking on this tale, I read Rosenberg's NEW MUTANTS: DEAD SOULS, giving me a taste (which I liked despite the unresolved cliffhanger ending) of his writing style and how he would handle writing for mutants.
I really liked his treatment of the characters! Beast felt in character, as did nearly everyone else. Even Old Man Logan, who was a great character in Millar's miniseries but who felt like a guest who didn't really know when to go home, was quite likable, bringing some real feels to the story, and the story's ending.
Do I think this was the worst way to bring back Jean? Good Lord, no! There have been a few other occasions over the years, which were closer to that notion! But this story? Yeah, it made sense (like <b>that</b> ever happens in comics!), giving Jean a return that felt proper as well as some genuine caring for her character's history as a whole!
And how about that art? WOW! I am not what you'd call a fan of Leinil Francis Yu's art style, finding it to be too "sketchy" at times. However, in the issues he turned in (Issues 1 and 5) were unlike any I had ever seen him draw before! While the other issues from Carlos Pacheco (Issue 2)Illustrator), Ramon Rosanas (Issue 4) and Joe Bennett (Issue 3 and Issue 5, alongside Yu) all seemed to tie together perfectly, never once swaying in art style, helping the story to remain visually consistent for all five of the issues of the the mini-series!
At the end of the day, I can find very little, if anything, to gripe about with PHOENIX RESURRECTION: THE RETURN OF JEAN GREY! It's a solid story that is all about characters we have grown up with and loved, as well as more than hearty helping of the feels! And, really, at the end of the day, isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Peace.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 28 Weeks Later starts by having a group of survivors in a boarded up farm house with tension rising a shock visit from a young boy leads to the infected attack the house and lone survivor Don (Carlyle) escaping leaving his wife behind. We are then lead into a flash-forward telling us how Britain is attempting to rebuild after the rage virus 28 Weeks Later. With Britain still being rebuilt Don’s children Tammy (Poots) and Andy (Muggleton) are the first children to return, even though the safety zone is still run by the military.
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Heartbreak Kid (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been almost ten years since Ben Stiller teamed with the Farrelly brothers for the comedy classic “There’s Something About Mary”, which launched a series of highly successful films for Stiller who has championed the likeable loser role to the delight of audiences worldwide.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
It’s a turf war on a global scale.
I saw this as part of a “Secret Cinema” event by Cineworld cinemas in the UK. That’s where you go to see a pre-release movie without knowing what it is going to be. It’s an interesting litmus test for a) a movie’s upfront marketing appeal (how many people get up and walk out when the BBFC title appears) and b) the “grab ’em early” appeal of the movie itself (how many people get up and walk out during the first 20 minutes of so).
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.