Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
It seems like just last week that the creators of the Final Fantasy game franchise sought to bring their vision of the universe they created, and their story, to the silver screen. Well, okay. It wasn’t last week. It’s actually been about 15 years since this really took place in 2001.
I remember being extremely excited for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the movie itself escapes me today. I think the lack of a lasting impact could have to do with those same creators scrambling to find the distinction between a wide-release movie and a game they’re already heavily invested in. After re-visiting the film, I remember my initial thoughts and they remain the same today. The nowhere-near-photo-realistic animated characters battled and chased each other to and fro in a tale that made little to no sense, with or without the rules of the (bad for its time) computer animated gamescape it’s all set in.
Flash back forward to today, another Japanese made FF movie makes its way to the screen via Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV. Kingsglaive represents a quantum leap forward in animation and design, if not a great leap in mo-cap technology and story. The images are far more flexible, more mobile, and more tactile; though, the faces still lack expression, much less what anyone could called subtle or nuanced. The backdrops are striking and surreal, on a par with many of the big sci-fi and fantasy films hitting theaters these days.
But, take away the advertorial nature of Kingsglaive, ignore its use as a cheat sheet, prep for the players of various corners of the game world it depicts, and deal with it as a story with characters and incidents anybody not devoted to the game would watch, and it’s the same old, same old when it comes to FF. It remains a misshapen mash-up heavy with sci-fi fantasy exposition and a back story so convoluted that a single two-hour movie cannot encapsulate it.
Kingsglaive dwells mostly in the realm of fantasy, inside a universe of medieval castles, steampunk weaponry, armor, and creatrues. A world where the Kingdom of Lucis faces a new threat at the end of an uneasy peace with the Niflheim Empire. There’s a magic crystal (of course there is) and the only warriors King Regis (Sean Bean) trusts to defend it are his Kingsglaive, who are empowered by the magic of their sovereign. There are tusked wildebeest warhorses. You would think these would be the point of reference when someone shouts, “Release the DEMON!” But no, they’re actually talking about war crabs – crabs that spit out a hailstorm of fireballs.
The stakes are high, and there’s been quite a bit of intermixing of Lucians and Niflheimers in the “hundred years of peace”, but anti-immigrant backlash rears its ugly head. Taunts and slurs against the immigrants are present, as is there a wall – who says video game movies can’t be topical. With the immigrants who must prove themselves, there are good soldiers, an evil prince, all with tongue-twisting names like Lenafreya Nox Fleuret, should you choose to try and remember them.
The dialogue, delivered by the likes of Aaron Paul and Lena Heady, could have been better. Though I don’t so much blame the voice talent as much as I do the script itself, with classics like “Get back here alive! That’s an order!” and “You speak of matters beyond the wall.”
Probably the biggest thing most movie fans will remember, is the name of the city under threat. It probably has the silliest name this side of Raccoon City. They call it, Insomnia. Which is kind of ironic, because Kingsglaive may be a cure for the condition for some.
I remember being extremely excited for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the movie itself escapes me today. I think the lack of a lasting impact could have to do with those same creators scrambling to find the distinction between a wide-release movie and a game they’re already heavily invested in. After re-visiting the film, I remember my initial thoughts and they remain the same today. The nowhere-near-photo-realistic animated characters battled and chased each other to and fro in a tale that made little to no sense, with or without the rules of the (bad for its time) computer animated gamescape it’s all set in.
Flash back forward to today, another Japanese made FF movie makes its way to the screen via Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV. Kingsglaive represents a quantum leap forward in animation and design, if not a great leap in mo-cap technology and story. The images are far more flexible, more mobile, and more tactile; though, the faces still lack expression, much less what anyone could called subtle or nuanced. The backdrops are striking and surreal, on a par with many of the big sci-fi and fantasy films hitting theaters these days.
But, take away the advertorial nature of Kingsglaive, ignore its use as a cheat sheet, prep for the players of various corners of the game world it depicts, and deal with it as a story with characters and incidents anybody not devoted to the game would watch, and it’s the same old, same old when it comes to FF. It remains a misshapen mash-up heavy with sci-fi fantasy exposition and a back story so convoluted that a single two-hour movie cannot encapsulate it.
Kingsglaive dwells mostly in the realm of fantasy, inside a universe of medieval castles, steampunk weaponry, armor, and creatrues. A world where the Kingdom of Lucis faces a new threat at the end of an uneasy peace with the Niflheim Empire. There’s a magic crystal (of course there is) and the only warriors King Regis (Sean Bean) trusts to defend it are his Kingsglaive, who are empowered by the magic of their sovereign. There are tusked wildebeest warhorses. You would think these would be the point of reference when someone shouts, “Release the DEMON!” But no, they’re actually talking about war crabs – crabs that spit out a hailstorm of fireballs.
The stakes are high, and there’s been quite a bit of intermixing of Lucians and Niflheimers in the “hundred years of peace”, but anti-immigrant backlash rears its ugly head. Taunts and slurs against the immigrants are present, as is there a wall – who says video game movies can’t be topical. With the immigrants who must prove themselves, there are good soldiers, an evil prince, all with tongue-twisting names like Lenafreya Nox Fleuret, should you choose to try and remember them.
The dialogue, delivered by the likes of Aaron Paul and Lena Heady, could have been better. Though I don’t so much blame the voice talent as much as I do the script itself, with classics like “Get back here alive! That’s an order!” and “You speak of matters beyond the wall.”
Probably the biggest thing most movie fans will remember, is the name of the city under threat. It probably has the silliest name this side of Raccoon City. They call it, Insomnia. Which is kind of ironic, because Kingsglaive may be a cure for the condition for some.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
It's difficult to know where to begin. I have strong feelings about Disney remakes in general, I was open to the idea until I saw some. I can understand remaking some that stand a chance of being mainly actual live-action like Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast, and I'm looking forward to Mulan despite its lack of Mushu... but... remaking something as "live-action" with realism when you have to include things that aren't realistic (talking animals) it seems pointless to me.
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Electric Dreams (1984) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
Let me start off by saying I recently purchased a region free DVD/Blu Ray player for myself when I discovered there were films I have not seen in 20+ years because they have never had a DVD/Blu Ray release in the US, but are actually available overseas! When I discovered this fact, among the first movies I purchased is this 1980s classic which has been mostly forgotten due to its unavailability.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Insanely violent… insanely funny.
It’s a pretty good bet that the cinema-going public will be pretty evenly divided between those that think films like “Deadpool“, “Kingsman: The Secret Service” and “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” are enormous fun and those that think they are crass, puerile and appealing to all the basest instincts of human beings. I happen to fall into the first category, and “Deadpool 2” lives up to – and in some cases surpasses – the quality of the first film.
It’s a “family film” (LoL). Ryan Reynolds is back again as the eponymous superhero (aka Wade Wilson) and we start the film with him in a state of romantic bliss with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). But things quickly go south, and what follows is a convoluted plot involving a local gangster, an Arnie-type character from the future (Josh Brolin) and an potentially dark X-powered child Firefist (Julian Dennison, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”). Deadpool has to use all his powers to restore order to the planet. Given that his “power” is the ability to rejuvenate himself after surviving the most catastrophic injuries, you can predict that things will get messy!
Yes guys, it’s violent… very, very violent! But it’s done in such a “Tom and Jerry” style that it always comes out as a “Bluuugggghhhhaaaaa!” (* that’s supposed to be the noise of a huge guffaw) rather than an “Ugggh” (retch).
A particular high point for me was the assembly of the ‘X-Men-Lite’ team called “X-force”. The ‘interviews’ for this are hilarious, but the first sortie of the team to intercept a convoy moving prisoners** is even better. It’s just snort-your-Ben-and-Jerry’s-out-of-the-nose funny. This scene also includes precisely 1.8 seconds of a splendid cameo in the part of “Vanisher”!
There are many scenes, supported by numerous snide one-liners, that reference movie classics. A subliminal cameo(s) shot in the X-Men house is just brilliant. Equally brilliant but much more disturbing is a variant on that most famous scene from “Basic Instinct”…. this falls into the “can’t unsee” category of movie clips!
But the film rather over-eggs the comic asides, with a scattergun approach to the comedy that works 70% of the time but not for the other 30%. The best ones are Deadpool’s snide aside to camera. Where the script over-reaches is where the joke gets spread across the cast: one ensemble scene in particular in the flat of blind Al (Leslie Uggams) is: a) delivered so fast as to be practically unintelligible and b) falls as flat as a pancake as a result.
Josh Brolin must have signed a three-film baddie deal, since here he pops up again just weeks after his brilliant Thanos-turn in “Avengers: Infinity War“. And as for that performance, here he is superbly nuanced, with scenes that are truly touching (and with less CGI) .
Across the superhero ensemble, Zazie Beetz stands out as “Domino”. She really should be called “Lucky” though (and yes Andrea ‘Van Helsing’ Ware… I know you have the trademark on that character name! 🙂 ). Domino is my favourite character in the film… just so cool and stylish.
And credit where credit’s due, Ryan Reynolds (“Life“, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“) is again outstanding as Deadpool. Given he is such a dish (not speaking personally here you understand) he is very brave to portray his character in such an self-deprecating and downbeat way. The final scene in the film (following some brilliant “tidying up the timeline” scenes) is so gloriously self-mocking that I LoLed myself all the way home. Outstanding.
As Marvel films go, it’s another corking comedy. But so close to the knuckle in places, I suspect this is not a character that will feature in the Infinity War sequel!
It’s a “family film” (LoL). Ryan Reynolds is back again as the eponymous superhero (aka Wade Wilson) and we start the film with him in a state of romantic bliss with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). But things quickly go south, and what follows is a convoluted plot involving a local gangster, an Arnie-type character from the future (Josh Brolin) and an potentially dark X-powered child Firefist (Julian Dennison, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”). Deadpool has to use all his powers to restore order to the planet. Given that his “power” is the ability to rejuvenate himself after surviving the most catastrophic injuries, you can predict that things will get messy!
Yes guys, it’s violent… very, very violent! But it’s done in such a “Tom and Jerry” style that it always comes out as a “Bluuugggghhhhaaaaa!” (* that’s supposed to be the noise of a huge guffaw) rather than an “Ugggh” (retch).
A particular high point for me was the assembly of the ‘X-Men-Lite’ team called “X-force”. The ‘interviews’ for this are hilarious, but the first sortie of the team to intercept a convoy moving prisoners** is even better. It’s just snort-your-Ben-and-Jerry’s-out-of-the-nose funny. This scene also includes precisely 1.8 seconds of a splendid cameo in the part of “Vanisher”!
There are many scenes, supported by numerous snide one-liners, that reference movie classics. A subliminal cameo(s) shot in the X-Men house is just brilliant. Equally brilliant but much more disturbing is a variant on that most famous scene from “Basic Instinct”…. this falls into the “can’t unsee” category of movie clips!
But the film rather over-eggs the comic asides, with a scattergun approach to the comedy that works 70% of the time but not for the other 30%. The best ones are Deadpool’s snide aside to camera. Where the script over-reaches is where the joke gets spread across the cast: one ensemble scene in particular in the flat of blind Al (Leslie Uggams) is: a) delivered so fast as to be practically unintelligible and b) falls as flat as a pancake as a result.
Josh Brolin must have signed a three-film baddie deal, since here he pops up again just weeks after his brilliant Thanos-turn in “Avengers: Infinity War“. And as for that performance, here he is superbly nuanced, with scenes that are truly touching (and with less CGI) .
Across the superhero ensemble, Zazie Beetz stands out as “Domino”. She really should be called “Lucky” though (and yes Andrea ‘Van Helsing’ Ware… I know you have the trademark on that character name! 🙂 ). Domino is my favourite character in the film… just so cool and stylish.
And credit where credit’s due, Ryan Reynolds (“Life“, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“) is again outstanding as Deadpool. Given he is such a dish (not speaking personally here you understand) he is very brave to portray his character in such an self-deprecating and downbeat way. The final scene in the film (following some brilliant “tidying up the timeline” scenes) is so gloriously self-mocking that I LoLed myself all the way home. Outstanding.
As Marvel films go, it’s another corking comedy. But so close to the knuckle in places, I suspect this is not a character that will feature in the Infinity War sequel!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A movie with more than a whiff of cordite about it
As I write this, I’m really struggling to evaluate whether the latest film of Ben Wheatley (“High Rise”) is a masterpiece or just pulp trash. It’s certainly a brave and highly distinctive venture, with that you can’t argue.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Michael’s back, back again
Happy Halloween everyone! What better way to celebrate than with my review of the latest in the Halloween franchise?
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Library of Lemons in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ebook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
A Library of Lemons</i> is the most recent novel by children’s author Jo Cotterill. It is a moving story about a child’s perception of a life heavily affected by loss and grief, and the impact a positive friendship can bring. Calypso is only ten years old but has the reading age of someone much older. In fact she loves books so much that she prefers them to interacting with other people. Since her mother’s death five years previously, Calypso’s father has distanced himself from the world, focusing on writing and reading in his study, and has encouraged his only daughter to do the same: “be your own best friend.” However, a new girl at school causes Calypso to question and change the way she views the world.
Despite never having had a friend at school, Calypso quickly develops a strong friendship with Mae who also has a passion for reading. The difference is Mae lets herself feel emotion and is happy to let other people into her life, a concept that is initially alien to Calypso. As time goes on Calypso realizes she is the happiest she has ever been and that Mae has filled a gap she did not know was there. Regrettably, her newfound contentment is shattered on discovering that something is wrong with her father, and that he has developed an unhealthy obsession with lemons…
From the very beginning the reader is shown how difficult Calypso’s life is. She often comes home to a cold, dark house where she has to fix herself her own dinner from a very limited supply of food. Yet until Calypso meets Mae, she does not realize that there is anything wrong with this. Once Calypso learns that her father is suffering with depression – something that older readers will already have guessed – she sees how unfair life is for her and notices that she is very different from other children her age. This is a heartbreaking situation for readers to imagine, but Calypso’s strength as a young carer is admirable – similarly to characters in some of her favourite books, such as<i> Anne of Green Gables</i>.
There are so many well-known novels referenced in <i>A Library of Lemons</i>, which emphasizes Calypso’s love of literature. Although Cotterill has included children’s classics amongst these titles, it is doubtful that young readers will be familiar with them all. This poses the problem that certain allusions to characters or storylines will be lost, however if the youngsters are just as passionate about reading as Calypso is, they may be inspired to seek out these famous works.
I was initially drawn to <i>A Library of Lemons</i> because I had loved Cotterill’s previous novel, <i>Looking at the Stars</i>. I was not aware at first that this novel tackled mental illness – which was not a problem as I often read books of that genre – but I was expecting something powerful and moving. And that is what I got. I much preferred <i>Looking at the Stars</i>, which I thought was a lot more emotional and shocking – a refugee camp in a third world country – however <i>A Library of Lemons</i> is still a beautiful story with deep and quotable prose.
Before I finish this review I would like to praise Cotterill for the way she dealt with the taboo subject of mental illness. Often illnesses of this nature are either glamourized or stigmatized, neither of which occurred in this novel. Cotterill’s portrayal of depression and its affects on both sufferer and child are extremely realistic. The way that the book ends is also true-to-life. There is no happy ever after, no amazing cure – but there is hope, a glimpse of recovery and a better future.
Although Calypso is ten, her advanced reading age and the difficult subject matter result in a book that is more suitable for young teenagers. Young and old adults will also enjoy it too, especially those who can relate to certain situations Calypso has to deal with. <i>A Library of Lemons</i> is definitely a story to read if you are a lover of books - a bookworm. You will not be disappointed.
A Library of Lemons</i> is the most recent novel by children’s author Jo Cotterill. It is a moving story about a child’s perception of a life heavily affected by loss and grief, and the impact a positive friendship can bring. Calypso is only ten years old but has the reading age of someone much older. In fact she loves books so much that she prefers them to interacting with other people. Since her mother’s death five years previously, Calypso’s father has distanced himself from the world, focusing on writing and reading in his study, and has encouraged his only daughter to do the same: “be your own best friend.” However, a new girl at school causes Calypso to question and change the way she views the world.
Despite never having had a friend at school, Calypso quickly develops a strong friendship with Mae who also has a passion for reading. The difference is Mae lets herself feel emotion and is happy to let other people into her life, a concept that is initially alien to Calypso. As time goes on Calypso realizes she is the happiest she has ever been and that Mae has filled a gap she did not know was there. Regrettably, her newfound contentment is shattered on discovering that something is wrong with her father, and that he has developed an unhealthy obsession with lemons…
From the very beginning the reader is shown how difficult Calypso’s life is. She often comes home to a cold, dark house where she has to fix herself her own dinner from a very limited supply of food. Yet until Calypso meets Mae, she does not realize that there is anything wrong with this. Once Calypso learns that her father is suffering with depression – something that older readers will already have guessed – she sees how unfair life is for her and notices that she is very different from other children her age. This is a heartbreaking situation for readers to imagine, but Calypso’s strength as a young carer is admirable – similarly to characters in some of her favourite books, such as<i> Anne of Green Gables</i>.
There are so many well-known novels referenced in <i>A Library of Lemons</i>, which emphasizes Calypso’s love of literature. Although Cotterill has included children’s classics amongst these titles, it is doubtful that young readers will be familiar with them all. This poses the problem that certain allusions to characters or storylines will be lost, however if the youngsters are just as passionate about reading as Calypso is, they may be inspired to seek out these famous works.
I was initially drawn to <i>A Library of Lemons</i> because I had loved Cotterill’s previous novel, <i>Looking at the Stars</i>. I was not aware at first that this novel tackled mental illness – which was not a problem as I often read books of that genre – but I was expecting something powerful and moving. And that is what I got. I much preferred <i>Looking at the Stars</i>, which I thought was a lot more emotional and shocking – a refugee camp in a third world country – however <i>A Library of Lemons</i> is still a beautiful story with deep and quotable prose.
Before I finish this review I would like to praise Cotterill for the way she dealt with the taboo subject of mental illness. Often illnesses of this nature are either glamourized or stigmatized, neither of which occurred in this novel. Cotterill’s portrayal of depression and its affects on both sufferer and child are extremely realistic. The way that the book ends is also true-to-life. There is no happy ever after, no amazing cure – but there is hope, a glimpse of recovery and a better future.
Although Calypso is ten, her advanced reading age and the difficult subject matter result in a book that is more suitable for young teenagers. Young and old adults will also enjoy it too, especially those who can relate to certain situations Calypso has to deal with. <i>A Library of Lemons</i> is definitely a story to read if you are a lover of books - a bookworm. You will not be disappointed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Glory Road (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Sports films have long been a popular genre in Hollywood as classics such as Pride of the Yankees, The Natural, and Raging Bull are all examples of some of the finest examples of sports films which encapsulate the very essence of the sport they portray.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.