Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm not really sure where to start with this so settle in for a ride. I've tried to avoid major spoilers but some of the things I've written might give away or hint at events in Endgame so please don't read this until you've seen it at the cinema.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
Inwardly focused SuperHero film mostly works.
THE BLACK PANTHER is the first entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that relies - predominantly - on characters (and actors) of color to carry it. Of the main characters, only 2 are Caucasian, the rest of the cast (including almost all of the supporting cast and the extras) - AND the Director are people of color. This has, rightfully so, created a "buzz" about the significance of this. It is a watershed moment for SuperHero films (much like last year's WONDER WOMAN was a watershed for a female led SuperHero film). But the question remains - is it a good film?
The answer: Good Enough.
Diving deeper into the character/hero T'Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) who was first introduced in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. In this film, we learn more about the backstory of this man/character as well as the world in which he lives and the burdens he bears. It also, interestingly enough, pretty much ignores the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for much of it's 2 hour 14 minute timeline. It mostly concerns itself with interior issues in the hidden kingdom of Wakanda and I think this tactic is a welcome relief from the giant, CGI-laden, characters-heavy Marvel films of recent memory.
Director/Writer Ryan Coogler (CREED/FRUITVALE STATION) decides to focus the attention of this film inward, rather than outward and we are rewarded with a rich, Shakespearean family drama that works because of it's simplicity.
Much of the effectiveness is due to the charismatic cast that has been drawn to this picture because of the significance of it as well as the richness of the characters they inhabit. Bozeman is regal and strong in the title role - no hint of the suffering, "I don't want this" SuperHero angst so often seen in these types of film. Academy Award winner Lupito Nyong'o joins in just as strong and independently as Nakia a "Spy" and erstwhile romantic foil for T'Challa - though Coogler is wise to avoid the "will they/won't they" cliche as well as eliminates, entirely, the "damsel in distress" subplot that would have been so tempting.
Helping these two out are a veritable "who's who" of actors of color - Angela Bassett, Forrest Whitaker, current Best Actor nominee Daniel Kaluuya and Sterling K. Brown - all turn out for fun (albeit brief) turns where each one of them gets a chance to show what they can do. Special notice should be made to Danai Gurira (TV's kick-ass Michonne in THE WALKING DEAD) as Okoye - T'Challa's chief general and bodyguard who must choose duty over honor (or does she) and, especially, Letitia Wright as T'Challa's younger, wise-cracking sister - who also happens to be the "Q" of this film. She jumped off the screen and shone brightly (but not so bright as to wash things out) in every scene she was in.
And...of course...there is Coogler favorite Michael B. Jordan (he's been in all of Coogler's major motion picture) as the villain of the piece - Erik Killmonger (the name says it all). Jordan does a nice job of bringing 3 dimensions to a character that was written a little too 2 dimension-ally, if you ask me. This character could have just been an "angry young man" cliche, but with Jordan, he becomes something much, much more.
This being a Marvel SuperHero film, the Special Effects are terrific, showing a highly secretive, highly technolized Wakanda that is hidden beneath the surface.
Is it a perfect film? Well...no. This is, in essence, a "family drama" with some hi-tech action scenes and the obligatory "two armies fighting" finale, and while the acting is good enough to hold interest throughout, I would have liked to have seen a little more action thrown in.
But...ignoring the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a good move - as was casting such strong, believable and likeable film actors.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The answer: Good Enough.
Diving deeper into the character/hero T'Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) who was first introduced in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. In this film, we learn more about the backstory of this man/character as well as the world in which he lives and the burdens he bears. It also, interestingly enough, pretty much ignores the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for much of it's 2 hour 14 minute timeline. It mostly concerns itself with interior issues in the hidden kingdom of Wakanda and I think this tactic is a welcome relief from the giant, CGI-laden, characters-heavy Marvel films of recent memory.
Director/Writer Ryan Coogler (CREED/FRUITVALE STATION) decides to focus the attention of this film inward, rather than outward and we are rewarded with a rich, Shakespearean family drama that works because of it's simplicity.
Much of the effectiveness is due to the charismatic cast that has been drawn to this picture because of the significance of it as well as the richness of the characters they inhabit. Bozeman is regal and strong in the title role - no hint of the suffering, "I don't want this" SuperHero angst so often seen in these types of film. Academy Award winner Lupito Nyong'o joins in just as strong and independently as Nakia a "Spy" and erstwhile romantic foil for T'Challa - though Coogler is wise to avoid the "will they/won't they" cliche as well as eliminates, entirely, the "damsel in distress" subplot that would have been so tempting.
Helping these two out are a veritable "who's who" of actors of color - Angela Bassett, Forrest Whitaker, current Best Actor nominee Daniel Kaluuya and Sterling K. Brown - all turn out for fun (albeit brief) turns where each one of them gets a chance to show what they can do. Special notice should be made to Danai Gurira (TV's kick-ass Michonne in THE WALKING DEAD) as Okoye - T'Challa's chief general and bodyguard who must choose duty over honor (or does she) and, especially, Letitia Wright as T'Challa's younger, wise-cracking sister - who also happens to be the "Q" of this film. She jumped off the screen and shone brightly (but not so bright as to wash things out) in every scene she was in.
And...of course...there is Coogler favorite Michael B. Jordan (he's been in all of Coogler's major motion picture) as the villain of the piece - Erik Killmonger (the name says it all). Jordan does a nice job of bringing 3 dimensions to a character that was written a little too 2 dimension-ally, if you ask me. This character could have just been an "angry young man" cliche, but with Jordan, he becomes something much, much more.
This being a Marvel SuperHero film, the Special Effects are terrific, showing a highly secretive, highly technolized Wakanda that is hidden beneath the surface.
Is it a perfect film? Well...no. This is, in essence, a "family drama" with some hi-tech action scenes and the obligatory "two armies fighting" finale, and while the acting is good enough to hold interest throughout, I would have liked to have seen a little more action thrown in.
But...ignoring the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a good move - as was casting such strong, believable and likeable film actors.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Oct 12, 2020
Monae shines - the rest falls flat
One of the films that I circled on my calendar back in the beginning of 2020 was a trippy looking "Civil War anachronism" film (my term) ANTEBELLUM starring Janelle Monae. I'm a sucker for these kinds of films, so was a little sad that I couldn't see it in the theater, but was thrilled when this "horror film" debuted on pay-per-view in time for Halloween.
I now know why the producers of this film decided to get this out now vs. waiting to release it theatrically sometime in 2021.
Billed as "Jordan Peel's GET OUT meets an M. Night Shyamalan film", ANTEBELLUM is a movie told in 3 acts. In the first act, Janelle Monae's character (who is given the slave name Eden) is brought into a Southern, Antebellum, plantation. This part of the film shows the desperation and despair that slaves lived in at a time that they had no rights and were under the whims of their White Slave Owners. The character of Eden is fiesty and is constantly looking to escape, but...eventually...is worn down by her masters and capitulates...to a point. This is the most successful part of this film, but has been better covered in other films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE.
The 2nd part of this movie takes place in "modern day" and concerns a successful author, Veronica Henley (also played by Monae). This character specializes in books and motivational speeches designed to empower the African-American woman. This part of the movie highlights Monae's appeal as a screen presence and she overcomes some weak writing to rise above. This part of the film, ultimately, falls flat for me, but I was curious as to how these 2 very different pieces of this movie fit together.
The 3rd part of this movie answers that question. If only, it answered it better....for pieces of this part of the movie works well...but others fall very, very flat resulting, ultimately, in a less than satisfying film-going experience that could have used some further work.
Monae's performance (for the most part) shines in this movie. She handles both characters that she is playing in a sharp, charismatic way. I could really buy that she is a popular "motivational" speaker (in the modern part of the movie). I could also see the fire in her spirit during the "Antebellum" part. What I didn't buy (and a weakness in the script doesn't help this part) is her "capitulation" to her slave owners.
And...that's about if for performances that stood out. All of the white actors playing the slave owners (mainly Eric Lange, Jena Malone and Jack Huston) are capital "E" evil. While this is probably historically accurate, they weren't evil enough - or multi-dimensional enough - to keep my attention. Compounding that issue is that the other characters in the "modern part" of the film are very generic and forgettable.
And then we get to the 3rd part of this film - where the first 2 parts are melded together.
It is one of those types of storytelling tropes that either you "go with it" or you don't. If you don't, the movie will lose you right there. If you do (and I did), then it is an interesting place to go and blends the first 2 parts of the film "well enough". My problem is that I didn't care enough about the characters to care about what happens.
I lay the blame of this on filmmakers Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz. They co-wrote and co-directed this movie. I had never heard of them, or (I don't think) I've encountered their work before, but upon reading up on them, they are listed as "Visionary Filmmakers Bush+Renz". If they are visionaries, they sure didn't bring much vision here. It was all pretty straightforward and could have used some other kind of "visionary" to lift this movie to a higher level.
You know, like Jordan Peele or even M. Night Shyamalan.
Letter Grade C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I now know why the producers of this film decided to get this out now vs. waiting to release it theatrically sometime in 2021.
Billed as "Jordan Peel's GET OUT meets an M. Night Shyamalan film", ANTEBELLUM is a movie told in 3 acts. In the first act, Janelle Monae's character (who is given the slave name Eden) is brought into a Southern, Antebellum, plantation. This part of the film shows the desperation and despair that slaves lived in at a time that they had no rights and were under the whims of their White Slave Owners. The character of Eden is fiesty and is constantly looking to escape, but...eventually...is worn down by her masters and capitulates...to a point. This is the most successful part of this film, but has been better covered in other films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE.
The 2nd part of this movie takes place in "modern day" and concerns a successful author, Veronica Henley (also played by Monae). This character specializes in books and motivational speeches designed to empower the African-American woman. This part of the movie highlights Monae's appeal as a screen presence and she overcomes some weak writing to rise above. This part of the film, ultimately, falls flat for me, but I was curious as to how these 2 very different pieces of this movie fit together.
The 3rd part of this movie answers that question. If only, it answered it better....for pieces of this part of the movie works well...but others fall very, very flat resulting, ultimately, in a less than satisfying film-going experience that could have used some further work.
Monae's performance (for the most part) shines in this movie. She handles both characters that she is playing in a sharp, charismatic way. I could really buy that she is a popular "motivational" speaker (in the modern part of the movie). I could also see the fire in her spirit during the "Antebellum" part. What I didn't buy (and a weakness in the script doesn't help this part) is her "capitulation" to her slave owners.
And...that's about if for performances that stood out. All of the white actors playing the slave owners (mainly Eric Lange, Jena Malone and Jack Huston) are capital "E" evil. While this is probably historically accurate, they weren't evil enough - or multi-dimensional enough - to keep my attention. Compounding that issue is that the other characters in the "modern part" of the film are very generic and forgettable.
And then we get to the 3rd part of this film - where the first 2 parts are melded together.
It is one of those types of storytelling tropes that either you "go with it" or you don't. If you don't, the movie will lose you right there. If you do (and I did), then it is an interesting place to go and blends the first 2 parts of the film "well enough". My problem is that I didn't care enough about the characters to care about what happens.
I lay the blame of this on filmmakers Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz. They co-wrote and co-directed this movie. I had never heard of them, or (I don't think) I've encountered their work before, but upon reading up on them, they are listed as "Visionary Filmmakers Bush+Renz". If they are visionaries, they sure didn't bring much vision here. It was all pretty straightforward and could have used some other kind of "visionary" to lift this movie to a higher level.
You know, like Jordan Peele or even M. Night Shyamalan.
Letter Grade C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Let The Dead Keep Their Secrets in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Let The DEAD Keep Their Secrets by Rosemary Simpson brings to life New York City during the 1880s in a historical mystery. It is rich in the culture of the time with a riveting Colombo type crime. Readers know who has done it and seek clues with the characters to find the proof.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Feb 29, 2020
Cynthia Erivo - mesmerising (2 more)
Great ensemble cast.
Truly uplifting story
A Crime has been committed
I'm not talking here about the criminal act of Edward Brodess (Mike Marunde) at the start of the film, tearing up perfectly legal documents that prove that slave 'Minty' (Cynthia Erivo) should be released from servitude. No. I'm talking about the 2020 Academy Awards selection.
This was just about the one and only mainstream film that I didn't get to see before this year's awards, and on catching up with it now I feel positively cross with the Academy. Were they looking for an excuse NOT to pour praise on a black-heavy film? Surely not! And yet here we have a standout performance from Cynthia Erivo, that should have been (imho) a more prominent challenger to Renée Zellweger; together with a superb supporting actor performance by Leslie Odom Jr. as her underground railway "Fat Controller" in Philadelphia.
And don't get me started on how or why Erivo didn't get the Oscar for best song with "Stand Up"! (And as both Erivo and Elton John are British, I'm not being partisan here). But did you HEAR and compare those two songs on the night?
The story is based (many would say 'very loosely based') on the amazing life story of Harriet Tubman, who in the run-up to the American Civil War made it her mission to free slaves. Illegally trapped herself on the Brodess farm in Maryland, 'Minty' plans to flee north leaving behind her husband John Tubman (Zackary Momoh), her father (an excellent Clarke Peters), her mother (Vanessa Bell Calloway) and four of her six siblings. It's a perilous pursuit, since being caught by the posse and their hunting dogs will mean severe beatings if not worse.
Fortunately, Minty has an ally.... God. For since a skull fracture, handed out by Gideon Brodess (Joe Alwyn, on great form), at the age of 13, Minty has had seizures where God has shown her flashes of future events.
"Be Free or Die" are the options. Which way will the dice fall for Minty, now reborn as Harriet, as she embarks on ever more perilous missions?
I just loved this movie. I thought Cynthia Erivo was mesmerising as the woman of great substance (you might say, 'True Brit'). There's not been a single Erivo film yet shown that I haven't been impressed with, with "Bad Times at the El Royale" being a particular favourite.
And what a fabulous ensemble cast! Aside from the folks mentioned above, other key performances come from Vondie Curtis-Hall as the Reverend Green (no, not "in the conservatory, with the lead piping") who delivers some fabulous gospel singing, Janelle Monáe (of "Hidden Figures" fame) as the kindly (but fictional) Marie Buchanon who is a friend in need, and Henry Hunter Hall who we first meet as the tricksy bounty hunter Walter.
Also praiseworthy is the score by Terence Blanchard, which seems to completely fit the mood of the movie, and the slightly blue-washed landscape cinematography of John Toll.
Kasi Lemmons - a lady whose previous work I'm not familiar with - directs with style, and (although I appreciate that the Best Director Oscar category only has five names in it) she must have been disappointed not to have been nominated for this. Lemmons also contributed to the story/script from Gregory Allen Howard ("Remember the Titans").
Why the hate on IMDB for this? The user reviews seem to be full of hateful 1* reviews, complaining of perverting the historical record. I can only conclude that this cohort is composed of a) black people genuinely upset about the portrayal of Tubman (which I can respect) and b) racists who are deadly opposed to the message the film portrays and looking for an excuse to bring it down.
Ignore them! If you change the name of the lead character to a fictional one and ignore the "based on a true story" angle, this is a genuinely uplifting and inspiring film. I was sat on a crowded plane, but I genuinely teared up at the finale (and particularly the very final shot) of this movie. It really spoke to me.
Recommended..... dig it out on a streaming service near you and make your own mind up.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/29/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-harriet-2019/. Thanks).
This was just about the one and only mainstream film that I didn't get to see before this year's awards, and on catching up with it now I feel positively cross with the Academy. Were they looking for an excuse NOT to pour praise on a black-heavy film? Surely not! And yet here we have a standout performance from Cynthia Erivo, that should have been (imho) a more prominent challenger to Renée Zellweger; together with a superb supporting actor performance by Leslie Odom Jr. as her underground railway "Fat Controller" in Philadelphia.
And don't get me started on how or why Erivo didn't get the Oscar for best song with "Stand Up"! (And as both Erivo and Elton John are British, I'm not being partisan here). But did you HEAR and compare those two songs on the night?
The story is based (many would say 'very loosely based') on the amazing life story of Harriet Tubman, who in the run-up to the American Civil War made it her mission to free slaves. Illegally trapped herself on the Brodess farm in Maryland, 'Minty' plans to flee north leaving behind her husband John Tubman (Zackary Momoh), her father (an excellent Clarke Peters), her mother (Vanessa Bell Calloway) and four of her six siblings. It's a perilous pursuit, since being caught by the posse and their hunting dogs will mean severe beatings if not worse.
Fortunately, Minty has an ally.... God. For since a skull fracture, handed out by Gideon Brodess (Joe Alwyn, on great form), at the age of 13, Minty has had seizures where God has shown her flashes of future events.
"Be Free or Die" are the options. Which way will the dice fall for Minty, now reborn as Harriet, as she embarks on ever more perilous missions?
I just loved this movie. I thought Cynthia Erivo was mesmerising as the woman of great substance (you might say, 'True Brit'). There's not been a single Erivo film yet shown that I haven't been impressed with, with "Bad Times at the El Royale" being a particular favourite.
And what a fabulous ensemble cast! Aside from the folks mentioned above, other key performances come from Vondie Curtis-Hall as the Reverend Green (no, not "in the conservatory, with the lead piping") who delivers some fabulous gospel singing, Janelle Monáe (of "Hidden Figures" fame) as the kindly (but fictional) Marie Buchanon who is a friend in need, and Henry Hunter Hall who we first meet as the tricksy bounty hunter Walter.
Also praiseworthy is the score by Terence Blanchard, which seems to completely fit the mood of the movie, and the slightly blue-washed landscape cinematography of John Toll.
Kasi Lemmons - a lady whose previous work I'm not familiar with - directs with style, and (although I appreciate that the Best Director Oscar category only has five names in it) she must have been disappointed not to have been nominated for this. Lemmons also contributed to the story/script from Gregory Allen Howard ("Remember the Titans").
Why the hate on IMDB for this? The user reviews seem to be full of hateful 1* reviews, complaining of perverting the historical record. I can only conclude that this cohort is composed of a) black people genuinely upset about the portrayal of Tubman (which I can respect) and b) racists who are deadly opposed to the message the film portrays and looking for an excuse to bring it down.
Ignore them! If you change the name of the lead character to a fictional one and ignore the "based on a true story" angle, this is a genuinely uplifting and inspiring film. I was sat on a crowded plane, but I genuinely teared up at the finale (and particularly the very final shot) of this movie. It really spoke to me.
Recommended..... dig it out on a streaming service near you and make your own mind up.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/29/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-harriet-2019/. Thanks).
