Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Emily, Gone in Books
Jun 7, 2019
I have been a fan of author Bette Lee Crosby since reading her book The Summer of New Beginnings. When I heard of her latest book, Emily, Gone, I knew I would have to read it sooner rather than later. Miss Crosby did not disappoint at all with this one.
Six month old Emily's parents are beyond exhausted due to a music festival very close to their house during 1971. After laying Emily down in her crib in her room, Emily's parents, Rachel and George Dixon, go to their room and finally have a good night's sleep. In the morning when Rachel checks on baby Emily, she is missing from her crib. Vicki gave birth to a stillborn baby girl about a month before Emily was born. When Vicki and her boyfriend decide to stop at a random house to get some food after the festival late one night, it's the perfect opportunity for her to steal baby Emily. What follows is a years long search for Emily all the while Emily is being raised by Vicki and her family. Will Rachel and George ever be united with their Emily?
I enjoyed the plot for Emily, Gone immensely. There are no plot holes or cliffhangers, and Bette Lee Crosby writes about 1971 and the subsequent years very well. It's as if I was transported back in time to that era. Everything flows together smoothly. I found myself wanting Rachel and George to be reunited with Emily quickly, but that wasn't the case. Back in 1971, things like the internet and Amber Alerts weren't a thing, so as frustrating as it was, I could see how hard it would be to recover a kidnapped child. I wish the story would have involved Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, a bit more. He's in the story for about halfway and that's about it. I would have liked to know about him in the epilogue at least. Also, I did find the ending a bit far fetched albeit it probable. It just seems like it would have been highly unlikely. Bette Lee Crosby does touch on the Christian faith lightly throughout this book which could explain the ending.
I found the characters in Emily, Gone to be written superbly. All of them were fleshed out enough to feel like a real person instead of a character in a book. My heart went out to Rachel throughout the years without her Emily. George, Emily's father, had better coping mechanisms, but I still felt bad to him. I can't imagine, and I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if someone kidnapped one of my kids. Mama Dixon was my favorite character in the book. I loved what a warm presence she was throughout the novel to her family. I felt like she was part of my family as well! Although Vicki was written well, I just did not like her. I found her to be very selfish, and I suppose that's because she was mentally ill after the stillborn birth of her baby girl. I kept silently pleading with her to do the right thing and return Emily. I kept wanting her to get caught so she could get the help she needed and the Dixons could have their baby back. I liked Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, but I wish he would have done the right thing and told someone what Vicki had done. In a way, I understand why he didn't turn Vicki in, but it would have been better for everyone in the long run. In a way, my heart also went out to Angela and Kenny for being pulled into Vicki's mess. They were also completely innocent of everything.
I found the pacing to be perfect from the very first page to the very last page. Every time I had to stop reading Emily, Gone I felt like I was leaving a long lost friend, and I couldn't wait to return.
Trigger warnings for Emily, Gone include some drug references, kidnapping, stillborn birth, mental illness, death, some alcohol use, slight references to child molestation, incest, and other sexual references (such as couples making love, nothing graphic).
Overall, Emily, Gone is a highly interesting read with an entertaining plot that will hold you tight and not let go of you until you're done reading! This is one of those stories that will tug at your heartstrings. I would definitely recommend Emily, Gone by Bette Lee Crosby to everyone aged 17+ who would love a fantastically written emotional story.
Six month old Emily's parents are beyond exhausted due to a music festival very close to their house during 1971. After laying Emily down in her crib in her room, Emily's parents, Rachel and George Dixon, go to their room and finally have a good night's sleep. In the morning when Rachel checks on baby Emily, she is missing from her crib. Vicki gave birth to a stillborn baby girl about a month before Emily was born. When Vicki and her boyfriend decide to stop at a random house to get some food after the festival late one night, it's the perfect opportunity for her to steal baby Emily. What follows is a years long search for Emily all the while Emily is being raised by Vicki and her family. Will Rachel and George ever be united with their Emily?
I enjoyed the plot for Emily, Gone immensely. There are no plot holes or cliffhangers, and Bette Lee Crosby writes about 1971 and the subsequent years very well. It's as if I was transported back in time to that era. Everything flows together smoothly. I found myself wanting Rachel and George to be reunited with Emily quickly, but that wasn't the case. Back in 1971, things like the internet and Amber Alerts weren't a thing, so as frustrating as it was, I could see how hard it would be to recover a kidnapped child. I wish the story would have involved Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, a bit more. He's in the story for about halfway and that's about it. I would have liked to know about him in the epilogue at least. Also, I did find the ending a bit far fetched albeit it probable. It just seems like it would have been highly unlikely. Bette Lee Crosby does touch on the Christian faith lightly throughout this book which could explain the ending.
I found the characters in Emily, Gone to be written superbly. All of them were fleshed out enough to feel like a real person instead of a character in a book. My heart went out to Rachel throughout the years without her Emily. George, Emily's father, had better coping mechanisms, but I still felt bad to him. I can't imagine, and I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if someone kidnapped one of my kids. Mama Dixon was my favorite character in the book. I loved what a warm presence she was throughout the novel to her family. I felt like she was part of my family as well! Although Vicki was written well, I just did not like her. I found her to be very selfish, and I suppose that's because she was mentally ill after the stillborn birth of her baby girl. I kept silently pleading with her to do the right thing and return Emily. I kept wanting her to get caught so she could get the help she needed and the Dixons could have their baby back. I liked Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, but I wish he would have done the right thing and told someone what Vicki had done. In a way, I understand why he didn't turn Vicki in, but it would have been better for everyone in the long run. In a way, my heart also went out to Angela and Kenny for being pulled into Vicki's mess. They were also completely innocent of everything.
I found the pacing to be perfect from the very first page to the very last page. Every time I had to stop reading Emily, Gone I felt like I was leaving a long lost friend, and I couldn't wait to return.
Trigger warnings for Emily, Gone include some drug references, kidnapping, stillborn birth, mental illness, death, some alcohol use, slight references to child molestation, incest, and other sexual references (such as couples making love, nothing graphic).
Overall, Emily, Gone is a highly interesting read with an entertaining plot that will hold you tight and not let go of you until you're done reading! This is one of those stories that will tug at your heartstrings. I would definitely recommend Emily, Gone by Bette Lee Crosby to everyone aged 17+ who would love a fantastically written emotional story.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Antikörper (Antibodies) (2007) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
A serial killer named Gabriel Engel (André Hennicke, Pandorum) that the police have been after for months has finally been captured. This is where most stories would end happily ever after, but instead this is how Antibodies begins. Michael Martens (Wotan Wilke Möhring, Valkyrie), a cop from a small, rural town had an unsolved case from a year ago concerning a 12-year-old girl named Lucia Flieder and Michael intends to interrogate Gabriel in hopes of a confession for her murder.
Gabriel already admitted to being in the area around the time of Lucia’s death, but her murder doesn’t entirely fit his M.O. But Michael plays right into Gabriel’s hands and becomes the pawn in his sick, psychological game as he’s able to get into Michael’s head from the moment they meet and remains there until the credits roll. The question isn’t, “Will Michael be able to find what he’s looking for?” but is instead, “Will Michael be able to survive the cerebral hedge maze Gabriel has thrown him into?”
Written and directed by Christian Alvart (Case 39, Pandorum), Antibodies is a German crime drama thriller that is worth seeing for André Hennicke’s performance alone. His portrayal of Gabriel is psychotic, disturbing, and extraordinarily mesmerizing as he steals nearly every scene he’s in. Hennicke embodies Gabriel and brings the character to life in all of his monstrously disquieting glory. There’s a brief sequence where Gabriel is drawing in his cell and he slowly starts pulling out his hair. There’s no dialogue, but Hennicke is able to pull it off with such terrifying elegance that it is incredible to witness.
Wotan Wilke Möhring is also quite impressive as Michael Martens. Michael struggles with the mental obstacles Gabriel throws at him throughout the film. Möhring is fantastically efficient at portraying a man who devoted his life to being an abiding citizen that is also committed to his religion. He cares deeply about his family and is now slowly losing his grip on his so-called perfect life. The interrogation scenes between Michael and Gabriel seem to simultaneously be homage to The Silence of the Lambs while also offering something different with its complete mastery of tension and Gabriel’s ulterior motives ring loudly upon the audience yet fall on deaf ears to a gullible Michael.
The religious parallels are incredibly interesting and deserve recognition, as well. The film has a tendency to not only reveal these parallels, but dives into them in a way that is easy to understand for the audience; the similarities between Michael and the archangel Gabriel are uncanny. The ending involving the test Gabriel gives Michael is all a part of a twisted game Gabriel plays and the web he’s spun has managed to get Michael tangled up in it. The film makes you think you know where it’s headed before it takes an unexpected detour and ends up going in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the film is the involvement of Norman Reedus. The Wikipedia entry for Antibodies is still so bare, but apparently Reedus did his part in the film for free. Before The Walking Dead came along, Reedus was known best for his roles in The Boondock Saints, 8MM, Blade II, and the John Carpenter directed Masters of Horror episode, “Cigarette Burns.” Reedus has always taken part in projects that are unusual, but typically turn out to be fairly awesome. It was a great change of pace to see him show up and speak a few lines of German without a crossbow or a motorcycle.
Antibodies isn’t without its flaws as its script is often juvenile with the way it references sex and pleasuring yourself way more often than it should. The German thriller is still able to capitalize on a wonderfully tense and magnificently unsettling atmosphere with two incredibly strong leads that make the whole journey worthwhile. The story is riveting despite a few hiccups, the cast is top notch, the cinematography is excellent, and its unpredictable outcome is brilliant.
Antibodies is currently streaming on Amazon Video and Vudu for $2.99. The 2-disc special edition DVD is available for $24.98 on Amazon while the standard DVD is between $19.99 and $43.41. The film is available on DVD for various prices on eBay with the best offers being a pre-owned version of the single disc edition for $5.39 (10% off its normal $5.99 price) and the two-disc edition for $18.24; both have free shipping.
Gabriel already admitted to being in the area around the time of Lucia’s death, but her murder doesn’t entirely fit his M.O. But Michael plays right into Gabriel’s hands and becomes the pawn in his sick, psychological game as he’s able to get into Michael’s head from the moment they meet and remains there until the credits roll. The question isn’t, “Will Michael be able to find what he’s looking for?” but is instead, “Will Michael be able to survive the cerebral hedge maze Gabriel has thrown him into?”
Written and directed by Christian Alvart (Case 39, Pandorum), Antibodies is a German crime drama thriller that is worth seeing for André Hennicke’s performance alone. His portrayal of Gabriel is psychotic, disturbing, and extraordinarily mesmerizing as he steals nearly every scene he’s in. Hennicke embodies Gabriel and brings the character to life in all of his monstrously disquieting glory. There’s a brief sequence where Gabriel is drawing in his cell and he slowly starts pulling out his hair. There’s no dialogue, but Hennicke is able to pull it off with such terrifying elegance that it is incredible to witness.
Wotan Wilke Möhring is also quite impressive as Michael Martens. Michael struggles with the mental obstacles Gabriel throws at him throughout the film. Möhring is fantastically efficient at portraying a man who devoted his life to being an abiding citizen that is also committed to his religion. He cares deeply about his family and is now slowly losing his grip on his so-called perfect life. The interrogation scenes between Michael and Gabriel seem to simultaneously be homage to The Silence of the Lambs while also offering something different with its complete mastery of tension and Gabriel’s ulterior motives ring loudly upon the audience yet fall on deaf ears to a gullible Michael.
The religious parallels are incredibly interesting and deserve recognition, as well. The film has a tendency to not only reveal these parallels, but dives into them in a way that is easy to understand for the audience; the similarities between Michael and the archangel Gabriel are uncanny. The ending involving the test Gabriel gives Michael is all a part of a twisted game Gabriel plays and the web he’s spun has managed to get Michael tangled up in it. The film makes you think you know where it’s headed before it takes an unexpected detour and ends up going in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the film is the involvement of Norman Reedus. The Wikipedia entry for Antibodies is still so bare, but apparently Reedus did his part in the film for free. Before The Walking Dead came along, Reedus was known best for his roles in The Boondock Saints, 8MM, Blade II, and the John Carpenter directed Masters of Horror episode, “Cigarette Burns.” Reedus has always taken part in projects that are unusual, but typically turn out to be fairly awesome. It was a great change of pace to see him show up and speak a few lines of German without a crossbow or a motorcycle.
Antibodies isn’t without its flaws as its script is often juvenile with the way it references sex and pleasuring yourself way more often than it should. The German thriller is still able to capitalize on a wonderfully tense and magnificently unsettling atmosphere with two incredibly strong leads that make the whole journey worthwhile. The story is riveting despite a few hiccups, the cast is top notch, the cinematography is excellent, and its unpredictable outcome is brilliant.
Antibodies is currently streaming on Amazon Video and Vudu for $2.99. The 2-disc special edition DVD is available for $24.98 on Amazon while the standard DVD is between $19.99 and $43.41. The film is available on DVD for various prices on eBay with the best offers being a pre-owned version of the single disc edition for $5.39 (10% off its normal $5.99 price) and the two-disc edition for $18.24; both have free shipping.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated He Walks Among Us: Encounters with Christ in a Broken World in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<b>Synopsis</b>
Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision United States who, along with his wife Reneé, regularly visits the poorer countries of our world to see the ways the charity is helping to change people's lives. <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is a compilation of short thoughts and observations (two-to-three pages, including photographs) they have both had while conducting their work. As they alternate the writing, we are given opinions and experiences that we may be able to relate to our own. As Richard is the president of the organisation, he can give an insight into the way World Vision works, however, he can also express his opinions as a father, grandfather and believer in Christ. Reneé is also a World Vision worker, but due to her nature, gives a more maternal impression of the scenes she witnesses.
The individuals written about in this book come from all over the world. Most are located in Africa, but there are also similar stories in Asia, South and North America, and even Eastern Europe. The terrors these people have faced are shocking (AIDs, war, sexual abuse, natural disasters etc), but each family has been aided in some way by World Vision and their donors.
The purpose of <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is not to promote World Vision, but to encourage us to let God and Jesus into our lives. Richard and Reneé assume their readers are Christians, however, they realise that being a Christian does not equate to fully accepting God's plans. The victims of war, rape, and poverty mentioned have also been touched by Jesus. Many did not know him before World Vision came into their lives, but they have now been transformed through the power of his love - although their situation may not have significantly improved.
The actual stories used to illustrate the work of World Vision are only brief mentions, providing the bare bones of the situations. What Richard and Reneé have focused on is linking these lives, their lives and our lives to passages from the Bible. Either taken literally or metaphorically, the pair manage to relate everything to the actions and fates of a number of key Biblical characters. This emphasises that Our Lord is walking among us, giving life, peace, hope and steadfast faith.
<b>Ideas</b>
Giving someone new hope or purpose in their life can be related to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Whether people are literally dying, or on the edge of hopelessness and despair, improving their situation can turn their lives around.
The donors and workers at World Vision are like the Good Samaritan in Jesus' parable. We do not know these people, know their religion or circumstances, yet we send money and aid. To do nothing would make us the Priest or Levite in the story.
David was only a young boy when he had to face Goliath, yet, against all odds, he defeated him. The children mentioned in this book are similar to David. They each have their metaphorical Goliath's: poverty, illness, loss of parents, war, hunger etc, but with God working through us, these can be overcome.
<b>Noteworthy Bible Verses</b>
Each chapter of the book begins with a Bible verse, and often more are included within the text. Here are a few that really relate to the work of World Vision and the ways in which we can involve ourselves:
Philippians 4:12-13
Luke 21:3-4
Luke 6:20-21
Psalm 23:4
<b>Statistics</b>
23 million people in sub-Sahara Africa are suffering from HIV.
In Soviet-controlled Georgia, churches were banned. Some villages are only just seeing their first church in over 400 years.
20 thousand children under the age of 5 die every day.
Every 4 seconds a child under 5 dies.
Over 2 billion people in the world are living on $2 or less a day.
1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water.
41% of the population in Niger have no clean water.
<b>Citations</b>
Helen Keller: "So much has been given to me, I have no time to ponder over that which is denied."
Oswald Chambers: "The great hindrance in spiritual life is that we will look for big things to do. Jesus took a towel ... and began to wash the disciples' feet."
Mother Theresa: "I am a pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world."
C.S. Lewis: "Humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less."
<b>Other Mentions</b>
Hymn - Frances R. Havergal, <i>Take my Life and let it be.</i>
Film - <i>Pushing the Elephant</i>
Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision United States who, along with his wife Reneé, regularly visits the poorer countries of our world to see the ways the charity is helping to change people's lives. <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is a compilation of short thoughts and observations (two-to-three pages, including photographs) they have both had while conducting their work. As they alternate the writing, we are given opinions and experiences that we may be able to relate to our own. As Richard is the president of the organisation, he can give an insight into the way World Vision works, however, he can also express his opinions as a father, grandfather and believer in Christ. Reneé is also a World Vision worker, but due to her nature, gives a more maternal impression of the scenes she witnesses.
The individuals written about in this book come from all over the world. Most are located in Africa, but there are also similar stories in Asia, South and North America, and even Eastern Europe. The terrors these people have faced are shocking (AIDs, war, sexual abuse, natural disasters etc), but each family has been aided in some way by World Vision and their donors.
The purpose of <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is not to promote World Vision, but to encourage us to let God and Jesus into our lives. Richard and Reneé assume their readers are Christians, however, they realise that being a Christian does not equate to fully accepting God's plans. The victims of war, rape, and poverty mentioned have also been touched by Jesus. Many did not know him before World Vision came into their lives, but they have now been transformed through the power of his love - although their situation may not have significantly improved.
The actual stories used to illustrate the work of World Vision are only brief mentions, providing the bare bones of the situations. What Richard and Reneé have focused on is linking these lives, their lives and our lives to passages from the Bible. Either taken literally or metaphorically, the pair manage to relate everything to the actions and fates of a number of key Biblical characters. This emphasises that Our Lord is walking among us, giving life, peace, hope and steadfast faith.
<b>Ideas</b>
Giving someone new hope or purpose in their life can be related to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Whether people are literally dying, or on the edge of hopelessness and despair, improving their situation can turn their lives around.
The donors and workers at World Vision are like the Good Samaritan in Jesus' parable. We do not know these people, know their religion or circumstances, yet we send money and aid. To do nothing would make us the Priest or Levite in the story.
David was only a young boy when he had to face Goliath, yet, against all odds, he defeated him. The children mentioned in this book are similar to David. They each have their metaphorical Goliath's: poverty, illness, loss of parents, war, hunger etc, but with God working through us, these can be overcome.
<b>Noteworthy Bible Verses</b>
Each chapter of the book begins with a Bible verse, and often more are included within the text. Here are a few that really relate to the work of World Vision and the ways in which we can involve ourselves:
Philippians 4:12-13
Luke 21:3-4
Luke 6:20-21
Psalm 23:4
<b>Statistics</b>
23 million people in sub-Sahara Africa are suffering from HIV.
In Soviet-controlled Georgia, churches were banned. Some villages are only just seeing their first church in over 400 years.
20 thousand children under the age of 5 die every day.
Every 4 seconds a child under 5 dies.
Over 2 billion people in the world are living on $2 or less a day.
1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water.
41% of the population in Niger have no clean water.
<b>Citations</b>
Helen Keller: "So much has been given to me, I have no time to ponder over that which is denied."
Oswald Chambers: "The great hindrance in spiritual life is that we will look for big things to do. Jesus took a towel ... and began to wash the disciples' feet."
Mother Theresa: "I am a pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world."
C.S. Lewis: "Humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less."
<b>Other Mentions</b>
Hymn - Frances R. Havergal, <i>Take my Life and let it be.</i>
Film - <i>Pushing the Elephant</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Elle (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The end of 2016 is just a few short weeks away. That being said, studios and filmmakers across the world are rolling out the few remaining big budget blockbusters and potential breakout independent masterpieces before year’s end. Among them is today’s film for your consideration. A film that has already received international acclaim when it premiered in competition for the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival as well as several awards including the Gotham Independent Film Award For Best Actress, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, a New York Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, and a Golden Globe Award Nomination for Best Actress for the film’s star, celebrated French film and stage actress Isabelle Huppert. The film would later go on to be selected as the French entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the 89th Academy Awards.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Accountant (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Rain Man with a Kalashnikov.
(Another Bob the Movie Man Showcase Theatre).
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.