Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Steve Jobs (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Steve Jobs is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Danny Boyle, stars Micheal Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, and Michael Stuhlbarg.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Beats (2019) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
When this came up as an Unlimited Screening I shrugged my shoulders and booked my ticket. I didn't know anything about it and the very brief synopsis I read didn't really change that.
Johnno and Spanner are life long friends. Johnno is sensible and has a relatively stable family life while Spanner is suffering from living in his brother's criminal shadow.
When Spanner finds out that Johnno's mum is moving them up in the world to a new house with her policeman boyfriend he's devastated and steals money from his brother to fuel one last great night out for them both.
Firstly, I can't for the life of me work out why this was filmed in black and white, from personal recollections 1994 was pretty colourful, even in Scotland. The only reason I can conclude, as a viewer, is so that they could add a tie-dye electric nightmare at the rave to illustrate the drug-fuelled euphoria in a rather predictable visual way. Neither particularly added anything to the proceedings.
The highlight when it came to the acting in Beats was Lorn Macdonald as Spanner. The different sides of his character were shown so well. We get a peek at the person Johnno knows him to be and not the person he's perceived to be. Macdonald managed to bring a vulnerability to Spanner and reminded us that friends are the family you choose.
Johnno as a character confused me a bit, he was all over the place. Quiet and shy for the most part with the odd outburst that didn't feel like they fit the situation. Cristian Ortega wasn't bad in this part but the muddled character traits throughout left me cold to Johnno.
Beats obviously contains a lot of music and I was pleased that it wasn't always played a full volume. We open with the pair dancing to music and you expect it to be excessively loud. They kept it at a relatively low level but managed to give you the impression it was louder by the way everyone reacted to it. I can't work out whether that was a good or a bad way to start because I keep pondering on that point, being loud would have been accurate but I probably would have been grumbling about that fact right now.
The rave itself felt very accurate but it was tremendously difficult to watch. It really gave you the impression that you were in it, the only trouble with that is that when you are actually in it you're not trying to watch what's happening. Perhaps we could have cranked it up and had audience participation.
Beats is a story of friendship that happens to coincide with a time of change for the music scene in Scotland. There are touching moments in it, mainly around Spanner, but the rest of the film felt like it was trying to be too artistic. There's probably a very niche audience of music lovers out there for this but there were just too many moments that made me frown to give this a higher rating.
On the topic of ratings, as a final point... Beats was rated 18 and I would assume that this was for the drug use and domestic violence. This is me being numb to all things offensive I guess but it really didn't feel like it needed an 18.
What you should do
If you were/are partial to a rave then give this a go, but it's not something I'd generally recommend.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the energy to party like that... what a distant memory.
Johnno and Spanner are life long friends. Johnno is sensible and has a relatively stable family life while Spanner is suffering from living in his brother's criminal shadow.
When Spanner finds out that Johnno's mum is moving them up in the world to a new house with her policeman boyfriend he's devastated and steals money from his brother to fuel one last great night out for them both.
Firstly, I can't for the life of me work out why this was filmed in black and white, from personal recollections 1994 was pretty colourful, even in Scotland. The only reason I can conclude, as a viewer, is so that they could add a tie-dye electric nightmare at the rave to illustrate the drug-fuelled euphoria in a rather predictable visual way. Neither particularly added anything to the proceedings.
The highlight when it came to the acting in Beats was Lorn Macdonald as Spanner. The different sides of his character were shown so well. We get a peek at the person Johnno knows him to be and not the person he's perceived to be. Macdonald managed to bring a vulnerability to Spanner and reminded us that friends are the family you choose.
Johnno as a character confused me a bit, he was all over the place. Quiet and shy for the most part with the odd outburst that didn't feel like they fit the situation. Cristian Ortega wasn't bad in this part but the muddled character traits throughout left me cold to Johnno.
Beats obviously contains a lot of music and I was pleased that it wasn't always played a full volume. We open with the pair dancing to music and you expect it to be excessively loud. They kept it at a relatively low level but managed to give you the impression it was louder by the way everyone reacted to it. I can't work out whether that was a good or a bad way to start because I keep pondering on that point, being loud would have been accurate but I probably would have been grumbling about that fact right now.
The rave itself felt very accurate but it was tremendously difficult to watch. It really gave you the impression that you were in it, the only trouble with that is that when you are actually in it you're not trying to watch what's happening. Perhaps we could have cranked it up and had audience participation.
Beats is a story of friendship that happens to coincide with a time of change for the music scene in Scotland. There are touching moments in it, mainly around Spanner, but the rest of the film felt like it was trying to be too artistic. There's probably a very niche audience of music lovers out there for this but there were just too many moments that made me frown to give this a higher rating.
On the topic of ratings, as a final point... Beats was rated 18 and I would assume that this was for the drug use and domestic violence. This is me being numb to all things offensive I guess but it really didn't feel like it needed an 18.
What you should do
If you were/are partial to a rave then give this a go, but it's not something I'd generally recommend.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the energy to party like that... what a distant memory.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Godzilla (1954) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
The beginning was inspired...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was first introduced to Godzilla in cartoon form in the 1980′s as a child, but it wasn't until 1998, with Roland Emmerich's blockbuster reboot that I had seen the infamous beast on the pearl screen. I had also seem bits and bobs of the many original sequels as a child and they had made absolutely no impact on me what so ever! But I became aware of the significance of this, the original, only recently and it was due to this discovery that I hunted down the best copy available.
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Shoplifters (Manbiki Kazuko) (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Last month I had the opportunity to attend a screening of Shoplifters, following its huge success at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. The film was written and directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, and follows a large, multi-generational family who are living on the brink of poverty. They live in a cramped, very basic apartment in the heart of Tokyo, where those able to work all band together in a desperate attempt to keep the family sheltered and fed.
As the title suggests, some members are petty criminals and frequently shoplift from local supermarkets and convienience stores in order to survive. It’s become a talent in the family, passed down from father to son and almost feels like a bonding exercise when you witness the way they work together. The family leads a simple life, justifying their actions by telling themselves if the theft doesn’t bankrupt the store owner, then they can survive without the items they took. It’s a way of clearing their conscience and seems to work very well. Osamu and and his son, Shota are the major players in the art of shoplifting, and are literally partners in crime.
Their lives change when they encounter Yuri, a young child who is outside in the freezing cold and looks malnourished. Despite the fact they already have too many mouths to feed, Osamu makes the decision to take her home and give her food and shelter. It soon becomes clear that Yuri has suffered abuse, based on the marks on her arm and her very quiet and timid behaviour. They decide to keep her as part of the family, fearing for her wellbeing.
This decision makes life even harder for the family as they have to evade the police both when shoplifting, and when going out in public with Yuri, as she soon becomes a missing person. This selfless act forms the rest of the film, resulting in a gorgeous 2 hours of cinema.
I was completely blown away by Shoplifters and its intimate portrayal of family life. As the film progressed, I found myself bonding with the characters as an audience member. I enjoyed seeing them on screen and going with them as they went about their daily lives. Each character has so much depth, their own wants and desires and their own secrets, to the point where they feel real. It could have easily been a documentary based on how close we are to the subjects, and how much we learn from them. Their character development is just stunning, and events in the third act left me in a stunned silence as we discover some harsh truths about the family.
The visual style varies from scene to scene, switching from clean and clinical streets to the cramped, messy apartment and back again. We are given a well-rounded and contrasting look at Japan’s capital and the people that live in it. The family have next to nothing but their bond is strong, doing everything they can to keep each other happy and healthy. We see them enjoying a day at the beach and watching the fireworks, activities that are both free and a lot of fun. The film certainly places a strong focus on life’s simple pleasures, and gives you a sense of gratitude throughout. Though harrowing in places, the happier moments radiate from the screen and leave you smiling to yourself because of how beautiful and convincing they are. It’s truly an emotional rollercoaster.
I have never seen a film quite like Shoplifters and though its pacing is slow, the bonds between characters and the deep exploration of their lives is enough to keep you glued to the screen throughout. It is certainly deserving of its Cannes win, because of its deep, thorough and complex exploration of family life. It will warm your heart and break it soon after, leaving you wanting to stay in their lives by the time the credits roll. This is a must-see.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/25/my-thoughts-on-the-2018-palme-dor-winning-film-shoplifters/
As the title suggests, some members are petty criminals and frequently shoplift from local supermarkets and convienience stores in order to survive. It’s become a talent in the family, passed down from father to son and almost feels like a bonding exercise when you witness the way they work together. The family leads a simple life, justifying their actions by telling themselves if the theft doesn’t bankrupt the store owner, then they can survive without the items they took. It’s a way of clearing their conscience and seems to work very well. Osamu and and his son, Shota are the major players in the art of shoplifting, and are literally partners in crime.
Their lives change when they encounter Yuri, a young child who is outside in the freezing cold and looks malnourished. Despite the fact they already have too many mouths to feed, Osamu makes the decision to take her home and give her food and shelter. It soon becomes clear that Yuri has suffered abuse, based on the marks on her arm and her very quiet and timid behaviour. They decide to keep her as part of the family, fearing for her wellbeing.
This decision makes life even harder for the family as they have to evade the police both when shoplifting, and when going out in public with Yuri, as she soon becomes a missing person. This selfless act forms the rest of the film, resulting in a gorgeous 2 hours of cinema.
I was completely blown away by Shoplifters and its intimate portrayal of family life. As the film progressed, I found myself bonding with the characters as an audience member. I enjoyed seeing them on screen and going with them as they went about their daily lives. Each character has so much depth, their own wants and desires and their own secrets, to the point where they feel real. It could have easily been a documentary based on how close we are to the subjects, and how much we learn from them. Their character development is just stunning, and events in the third act left me in a stunned silence as we discover some harsh truths about the family.
The visual style varies from scene to scene, switching from clean and clinical streets to the cramped, messy apartment and back again. We are given a well-rounded and contrasting look at Japan’s capital and the people that live in it. The family have next to nothing but their bond is strong, doing everything they can to keep each other happy and healthy. We see them enjoying a day at the beach and watching the fireworks, activities that are both free and a lot of fun. The film certainly places a strong focus on life’s simple pleasures, and gives you a sense of gratitude throughout. Though harrowing in places, the happier moments radiate from the screen and leave you smiling to yourself because of how beautiful and convincing they are. It’s truly an emotional rollercoaster.
I have never seen a film quite like Shoplifters and though its pacing is slow, the bonds between characters and the deep exploration of their lives is enough to keep you glued to the screen throughout. It is certainly deserving of its Cannes win, because of its deep, thorough and complex exploration of family life. It will warm your heart and break it soon after, leaving you wanting to stay in their lives by the time the credits roll. This is a must-see.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/25/my-thoughts-on-the-2018-palme-dor-winning-film-shoplifters/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Trust No One
It felt like I’d been waiting an eternity for Greta, and the suspense was killing me. I’d seen plenty of feedback from those who attended TIFF, and the trailer had played before so many films I’d seen in the cinema. The concept had intrigued me from day one, as I find myself very drawn to thrillers such as this one. Being stalked is a very real, very genuine fear, and it’s that sense of realism that makes it so terrifying.
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
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 (971 KP) rated Cinderella Man (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the late 1920’s Jim Braddock was a boxer with a future. After many wins, he was poised to take his place as one of the greatest boxers of his time. Things took a bad turn for Jim in 1929 when he first lost a 15 round decision to Tommy Loughran, and then lost everything in the Stock Market Crash.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jennifer's Body (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Devil's Kettle is a small town where everyone knows everybody. The story revolves around the relationship between Needy (Amanda Seyfried) and Jennifer (Megan Fox) and other than having similar interests, the two are polar opposites. Needy is more of the quiet, girl next door type that is a bit of a bookworm with a heart of gold whereas Jennifer is more spontaneous, mean spirited, and the stuck-up, hot cheerleader type that every high school boy seems to dream about being with. One night, Jennifer drags Needy to Melody Lane, the one bar in town, to see a new flavor of the week indie band called Low Shoulder. When the bar catches on fire and most of the people inside are crushed or burned in the destruction, Needy thinks that's where this horrible night gone wrong would end. That is until Jennifer decides to go off with the band in their van and Needy has to make her way back home alone. After that night, a demon is transferred into Jennifer's body with an unquenchable hunger for high school guys. As Needy begins to accept what's happened to her BFF, she realizes that she's the only one that has a chance of stopping Jennifer once and for all.
Other than Megan Fox, the other factor that was pushed really hard in the advertising campaign for Jennifer's Body was the fact that Diablo Cody, the screenwriter for Juno, was attached to this film. To be honest, I think Cody's contributions are what I enjoyed most. The dialogue and humor of the film are both witty and laugh out loud funny at times. The writing, in general, made what otherwise would have been your average horror film worth watching and fairly entertaining in the long run.
This is probably the best we've seen acting-wise when it comes to Megan Fox. She isn't much other than eye candy in the Transformers films and was just an egotistical tramp that just so happened to be a rising star in How To Lose Friends and Alienate People. Other than the demonic possession part, her role in Jennifer's Body isn't too different from her role in How To Lose Friends and Alienate People. I'd give most of the credit to Cody's great writing, but Fox is actually able to display a bit more of her acting range this time around. While it probably isn't much compared to, you know, actresses with talent and she sounds like she has a cold most of the time, it's more than what we've seen from the actress in the past and everyone has to start somewhere.
The storyline doesn't offer much fresh material when it comes to horror films, but it gets the job done. The ending offers a bit of a different take on what would otherwise be an ending that would leave room for a sequel. With the conclusion to Jennifer's Body, however, it's more open ended. They could stop here and it would be a fine stand alone film, but it leaves enough questions unanswered that a sequel could see the light of day. Since the movie only made around $18 million worldwide, a sequel seeing theatrical distribution seems unlikely. A direct to DVD sequel with B-actors is definitely a possibility though. Aren't they always with horror films?
Jennifer's Body is superbly written on one hand, but feels like a run of the mill horror film on the other. The high point is definitely the screenplay by Diablo Cody, who manages to make Megan Fox's acting abilities look better than they ever have. But it seems the films enjoyment will rest solely on the shoulders of how much you enjoy horror films that don't shy away from blood. If you're not a fan of horror, I'd recommend staying away from this one. But if you're a fan of great writing, quite a bit of blood, horror, or Megan Fox's sex appeal then you should definitely give this one a go.
Other than Megan Fox, the other factor that was pushed really hard in the advertising campaign for Jennifer's Body was the fact that Diablo Cody, the screenwriter for Juno, was attached to this film. To be honest, I think Cody's contributions are what I enjoyed most. The dialogue and humor of the film are both witty and laugh out loud funny at times. The writing, in general, made what otherwise would have been your average horror film worth watching and fairly entertaining in the long run.
This is probably the best we've seen acting-wise when it comes to Megan Fox. She isn't much other than eye candy in the Transformers films and was just an egotistical tramp that just so happened to be a rising star in How To Lose Friends and Alienate People. Other than the demonic possession part, her role in Jennifer's Body isn't too different from her role in How To Lose Friends and Alienate People. I'd give most of the credit to Cody's great writing, but Fox is actually able to display a bit more of her acting range this time around. While it probably isn't much compared to, you know, actresses with talent and she sounds like she has a cold most of the time, it's more than what we've seen from the actress in the past and everyone has to start somewhere.
The storyline doesn't offer much fresh material when it comes to horror films, but it gets the job done. The ending offers a bit of a different take on what would otherwise be an ending that would leave room for a sequel. With the conclusion to Jennifer's Body, however, it's more open ended. They could stop here and it would be a fine stand alone film, but it leaves enough questions unanswered that a sequel could see the light of day. Since the movie only made around $18 million worldwide, a sequel seeing theatrical distribution seems unlikely. A direct to DVD sequel with B-actors is definitely a possibility though. Aren't they always with horror films?
Jennifer's Body is superbly written on one hand, but feels like a run of the mill horror film on the other. The high point is definitely the screenplay by Diablo Cody, who manages to make Megan Fox's acting abilities look better than they ever have. But it seems the films enjoyment will rest solely on the shoulders of how much you enjoy horror films that don't shy away from blood. If you're not a fan of horror, I'd recommend staying away from this one. But if you're a fan of great writing, quite a bit of blood, horror, or Megan Fox's sex appeal then you should definitely give this one a go.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I passed on "The Oz Effect" when it first ran in ACTION COMICS back in 2017. The whole "Rebirth" thing intrigued me, but some of the stuff like the Flash/Batman crossover "The Button", just left me cold and bordering on disinterest. When I saw the identity reveal as to the story arc's antagonist, I felt frustrated and disappointing, feeling like "#Facepalm Didn't we do something like this already?!".
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).