Search
The History of the Jews
Book
The History Of The Jews: From The Earliest Period Down To Modern Times, In Three Volumes. (Vol. 3)...
Beggar Thy Neighbor: A History of Usury and Debt
Book
The practice of charging interest on loans has been controversial since it was first mentioned in...
Heroes and Landmarks of British Aviation: from Airships to the Jet Age
Peter J. Edwards and Richard Edwards
Book
Heroes and Landmarks of British Aviation tells the dramatic story of a world leading aviation...
Illeana Douglas recommended Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies (curated)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Sep 12, 2020
Powerful viewing
I'd really wanted to see this at the cinema but sadly never got round to it as it had such a limited run at my local, and to be honest seeing it now I'm a little frustrated I never got the chance.
This is a powerful film in more than one way - powerful story, powering acting and powerful in it's way of highlighting a very real problem. The acting is tremendous by everyone involved, even those with smaller bit parts like Kate McKinnon, Alison Janney etc, they all shone with whatever they had to work with. The three leads, Theron and Robbie especially, were brilliant. I'll admit it took me a while to get used to Theron's prosthetics and voice, and to be frank whilst I rate Nicole Kidman as an actress, her botox and far too smooth skin with an inability to emote really lets her down. And then there's John Lithgow too, he's faultless and nails that slimy yet charming and likeable character that Ailes is portrayed as being.
The main thing that let this down was the beginning. The direct address to camera/breaking 4th wall might have worked in The Big Short for writer Charles Randolph, it really didn't work here. It was no doubt meant to lighten the mood and provide some comic relief as it did in TBS, but here it just felt inappropriate. This is a serious issue and a serious story, and shouldn't be made light of.
Once it gets over this initial blip, this film really gets going. I was gripped by this fascinating story that I didnt know a huge amount about and this was helped by the decent pace and under 2 hour runtime - have filmmakers finally realised a film doesn't have to be over 2 hours to be good?!
Whilst 'enjoyed' isn't probably the right word considering the subject matter, this is a fantastic and powerful film. I found it gave me a massive sense of empowerment and if it hadn't have been for the initial blip in storytelling device, I wouldve rated this higher.
This is a powerful film in more than one way - powerful story, powering acting and powerful in it's way of highlighting a very real problem. The acting is tremendous by everyone involved, even those with smaller bit parts like Kate McKinnon, Alison Janney etc, they all shone with whatever they had to work with. The three leads, Theron and Robbie especially, were brilliant. I'll admit it took me a while to get used to Theron's prosthetics and voice, and to be frank whilst I rate Nicole Kidman as an actress, her botox and far too smooth skin with an inability to emote really lets her down. And then there's John Lithgow too, he's faultless and nails that slimy yet charming and likeable character that Ailes is portrayed as being.
The main thing that let this down was the beginning. The direct address to camera/breaking 4th wall might have worked in The Big Short for writer Charles Randolph, it really didn't work here. It was no doubt meant to lighten the mood and provide some comic relief as it did in TBS, but here it just felt inappropriate. This is a serious issue and a serious story, and shouldn't be made light of.
Once it gets over this initial blip, this film really gets going. I was gripped by this fascinating story that I didnt know a huge amount about and this was helped by the decent pace and under 2 hour runtime - have filmmakers finally realised a film doesn't have to be over 2 hours to be good?!
Whilst 'enjoyed' isn't probably the right word considering the subject matter, this is a fantastic and powerful film. I found it gave me a massive sense of empowerment and if it hadn't have been for the initial blip in storytelling device, I wouldve rated this higher.
The Architecture of Hope: Maggie's Cancer Caring Centres
Book
THE ARCHITECTURE OF HOPE focuses on an exciting building project that has been underway since the...
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Last Dickens in Books
Nov 18, 2019
I will hold my hand up to two things at the start of this review. Firstly I am drawn to fiction based on other fiction, and secondly I'm not a big Dickens fan. For various reasons I just don't find him an interesting read.
However I can't deny his impact as a novelist at a time when reading as a past time was only just reaching the masses. And so this book looked intriguing.
Primarily set immediately after the death of the famous author, having completed exactly half of the installments of his latest book - The Mystery of Edwin Drood - James Osgood, the junior partner in his American publishers is sent to England to try to track down any other parts of the manuscript.
However dark forces are afoot; there are two murders related to the Dickens papers in short order and Osgood is attacked on the ship to England. Clearly someone does not want any more of Drood to be published.
Pearl has taken one of the greatest literary mysteries of all (there really are no clues about how Drood was supposed to conclude) and wrapped it in another fictional conundrum. He has clearly researched all of the details very well and uses real people - including Osgood and Dickens himself- along with fictional characters to tell the story. This gives the plot a certain solidity because so much of it is based in reality, with the fabricated parts showing through the cracks.
The narrative moves between 1870 and Osgood's quest, to India at the same time where Frank Dickens (son of Charles) is investigating drug smuggling and to 1868 when Dickens is performing a reading tour of America.
The plot is more-or-less highly plausible, just some coincidental points that require a little suspension of disbelief. The writing is excellent throughout, highly descriptive and particularly good at capturing the personalities of the characters (as would be expected given how carefully this has been researched). There are several action scenes at the book progresses and these are handled well. The villains are unmasked in classical style, gloating with our heroes apparently doomed only for the tables to be turned.
Honestly I was expecting this to be reasonably interesting, highlighting aspects of Dickens' life and death with a little light murder mystery thrown in. In the end I would call this nothing less than a triumph and will definitely be looking to read more of Pearl's work.
It's still not tempted me to read any Dickens, though...
However I can't deny his impact as a novelist at a time when reading as a past time was only just reaching the masses. And so this book looked intriguing.
Primarily set immediately after the death of the famous author, having completed exactly half of the installments of his latest book - The Mystery of Edwin Drood - James Osgood, the junior partner in his American publishers is sent to England to try to track down any other parts of the manuscript.
However dark forces are afoot; there are two murders related to the Dickens papers in short order and Osgood is attacked on the ship to England. Clearly someone does not want any more of Drood to be published.
Pearl has taken one of the greatest literary mysteries of all (there really are no clues about how Drood was supposed to conclude) and wrapped it in another fictional conundrum. He has clearly researched all of the details very well and uses real people - including Osgood and Dickens himself- along with fictional characters to tell the story. This gives the plot a certain solidity because so much of it is based in reality, with the fabricated parts showing through the cracks.
The narrative moves between 1870 and Osgood's quest, to India at the same time where Frank Dickens (son of Charles) is investigating drug smuggling and to 1868 when Dickens is performing a reading tour of America.
The plot is more-or-less highly plausible, just some coincidental points that require a little suspension of disbelief. The writing is excellent throughout, highly descriptive and particularly good at capturing the personalities of the characters (as would be expected given how carefully this has been researched). There are several action scenes at the book progresses and these are handled well. The villains are unmasked in classical style, gloating with our heroes apparently doomed only for the tables to be turned.
Honestly I was expecting this to be reasonably interesting, highlighting aspects of Dickens' life and death with a little light murder mystery thrown in. In the end I would call this nothing less than a triumph and will definitely be looking to read more of Pearl's work.
It's still not tempted me to read any Dickens, though...
Brett Eldredge by Brett Eldredge
9.0
Rate It
Album
Singing country music with a soulful edge and more than a dash of pop polish, Brett Eldredge was...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Death Wish (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Dr. Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis), life is good but at a crossroads. With his birthday coming up, his daughter Jordan (Camila Morrone) is preparing to leave their affluent Chicago home to start college in New York.
His wife Lucy (Elisabeth Shue) knows this is a good thing for their daughter but also knows that it is a turning point in their lives as they will soon be facing an empty nest.
Sadly their ideal life is turned upside down when a home invasion and robbery turns unexpectedly violent leaving Lucy dead and Jordan in a coma. A distraught Paul finds little solace in therapy or in the support of his brother Frank (Vincent D’Onofrio) who is putting his own life back together.
Frustrated by the inability of the police to find those responsible and bring them to justice; Paul becomes even more and more frustrated as the weeks pass. Paul eventually comes into possession of a gun and begins to practice with it which eventually leads him to taking to the streets in a Hoody. When a chance encounters has him gun down two criminals, Paul finds a sudden rush from his experience, especially when it was captured by an onlooker and posted online. Thanks to his face being hidden, the media dubs him the “Grim Reaper” and Paul begins a campaign of vigilante justice as he tracks down those responsible for his suffering and looks to exact a brutal revenge.
The movie directed by horror icon Eli Roth is a faithful update of the Charles Bronson classic. Paul is now Doctor Vs an Architect and Chicago not New York serves as the setting, but the tone and subject matter of the film is very much the same. Roth does show his horror background with a couple of killings that are a bit gruesome but they are not overly gratuitous as he cuts away from the carnage instead of lingering on it.
What I found most satisfying is how the film moved at a slow and almost deliberate pace. This was not a run and gun action film like many of the past films Willis has done. His Kersey is an everyman who decides to take extraordinary measures when he believes the law has failed him.
He moves at a steady pace and even in the most frantic moments, moves with the speed one would expect of a man of his years who has only recently fired a gun. Although effective he is at times unsteady with his shorts and actions and his inexperience shows.
It was refreshing to see combat on screen by a character that seemed real vs a polished officer or combat vet.
The cast was solid and really worked well with one another and you could see the struggle they faced with the situations presented to them. The audience at my press screening responded well to the film and seemed to get behind Paul as he embarked on his crusade. I am very curious to see in this time of controversy about gun laws how the film will be received.
For me, “Death Wish” is a very entertaining retelling of a well-known story that still holds up and still asks many difficult questions about our society and how to best protect the ones we love.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/01/death-wish/
His wife Lucy (Elisabeth Shue) knows this is a good thing for their daughter but also knows that it is a turning point in their lives as they will soon be facing an empty nest.
Sadly their ideal life is turned upside down when a home invasion and robbery turns unexpectedly violent leaving Lucy dead and Jordan in a coma. A distraught Paul finds little solace in therapy or in the support of his brother Frank (Vincent D’Onofrio) who is putting his own life back together.
Frustrated by the inability of the police to find those responsible and bring them to justice; Paul becomes even more and more frustrated as the weeks pass. Paul eventually comes into possession of a gun and begins to practice with it which eventually leads him to taking to the streets in a Hoody. When a chance encounters has him gun down two criminals, Paul finds a sudden rush from his experience, especially when it was captured by an onlooker and posted online. Thanks to his face being hidden, the media dubs him the “Grim Reaper” and Paul begins a campaign of vigilante justice as he tracks down those responsible for his suffering and looks to exact a brutal revenge.
The movie directed by horror icon Eli Roth is a faithful update of the Charles Bronson classic. Paul is now Doctor Vs an Architect and Chicago not New York serves as the setting, but the tone and subject matter of the film is very much the same. Roth does show his horror background with a couple of killings that are a bit gruesome but they are not overly gratuitous as he cuts away from the carnage instead of lingering on it.
What I found most satisfying is how the film moved at a slow and almost deliberate pace. This was not a run and gun action film like many of the past films Willis has done. His Kersey is an everyman who decides to take extraordinary measures when he believes the law has failed him.
He moves at a steady pace and even in the most frantic moments, moves with the speed one would expect of a man of his years who has only recently fired a gun. Although effective he is at times unsteady with his shorts and actions and his inexperience shows.
It was refreshing to see combat on screen by a character that seemed real vs a polished officer or combat vet.
The cast was solid and really worked well with one another and you could see the struggle they faced with the situations presented to them. The audience at my press screening responded well to the film and seemed to get behind Paul as he embarked on his crusade. I am very curious to see in this time of controversy about gun laws how the film will be received.
For me, “Death Wish” is a very entertaining retelling of a well-known story that still holds up and still asks many difficult questions about our society and how to best protect the ones we love.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/01/death-wish/
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...