Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated War Dogs (2016) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Good direction (3 more)
Scorsese influence
Soundtrack
Bradley Cooper
Fresher Than A Hangover
The craziest thing about this story is that it is based on two real life young men that made a fortune online becoming international arms dealers. Going in I expected a film similar to The Hangover, since it too was directed by Todd Phillips and both movies feature Bradley Cooper, however what I got was more of a Scorsese homage and in the best possible way. The story is narrated by Miles Teller’s character David Packouz, who acts as the audience surrogate, (the Henry Hill of this movie,) we are taken on this ride from his perspective and he narrates the whole thing. This alone is a trait borrowed from the great Martin Scorsese, but when the film also features freeze framing and quotes being used to begin chapters it is clear what this film is trying to be, but I admire its blatancy and if there is someone that you should take from when crafting a film, it is Martin Scorsese. Efraim Diveroli is played by Jonah Hill and he is the character that takes us on this rollercoaster journey. His performance here is fantastically intolerable, he is harsh, rude and borderline insane, but much like Joe Pesci’s performance as Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas, he is endearing and impossible to take your eyes off of whenever he is onscreen. Bradley Cooper also steals the few scenes that he appears in and overall this movie is proof that Phillips can handle telling a more serious, realistic story and doesn’t have to rely on Zach Galifinakis pretending to have learning difficulties to gain a few laughs.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated In Search of Darkness (2019) in Movies
Aug 12, 2020
In short, In Search of Darkness is a must watch for any horror fan.
It's 4+ hour runtime is a gushing love letter to 80s horror, covering the decade year by year, with interviews from an impressive cast of genre icons - John Carpenter, Larry Cohen, Joe Dante, Barbara Crampton, Doug Bradley, Tom Atkins, Lori Cardille, Nick Castle, Jeffrey Combs, Kane Hodder, Tom Holland, Heather Langenkamp, Don Mancini, Cassandra Peterson, Caroline Williams, Brian Yuzner, and many more!
The documentary doesn't break any new ground, truth be told, but it's hard to not to appreciate all of these films being covered in one place. The sheer amount of titles discussed is pretty vast.
It's put together nicely as well. Old grainy film trailers tend to set the tone of each entry, but all of the footage shown is crystal clear and HD. The graphics are eye catching, with classic one sheets on display throughout, and it's all set too a great synth soundtrack courtesy of Weary Pines.
Really worth checking out - I split my viewing over a few nights and was honestly gutted when I had none left to watch. Director David A. Weiner did a great job with this documentary, and has a second one coming next year entitled In Search of Tomorrow, focusing on the Sci-Fi films of the 80s, and I can't wait to see it!
It's 4+ hour runtime is a gushing love letter to 80s horror, covering the decade year by year, with interviews from an impressive cast of genre icons - John Carpenter, Larry Cohen, Joe Dante, Barbara Crampton, Doug Bradley, Tom Atkins, Lori Cardille, Nick Castle, Jeffrey Combs, Kane Hodder, Tom Holland, Heather Langenkamp, Don Mancini, Cassandra Peterson, Caroline Williams, Brian Yuzner, and many more!
The documentary doesn't break any new ground, truth be told, but it's hard to not to appreciate all of these films being covered in one place. The sheer amount of titles discussed is pretty vast.
It's put together nicely as well. Old grainy film trailers tend to set the tone of each entry, but all of the footage shown is crystal clear and HD. The graphics are eye catching, with classic one sheets on display throughout, and it's all set too a great synth soundtrack courtesy of Weary Pines.
Really worth checking out - I split my viewing over a few nights and was honestly gutted when I had none left to watch. Director David A. Weiner did a great job with this documentary, and has a second one coming next year entitled In Search of Tomorrow, focusing on the Sci-Fi films of the 80s, and I can't wait to see it!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Jolt (2021) in Movies
Aug 3, 2021
The main thing that Jolt has going for it is Kate Beckinsale. Her protagonist is likable enough to just about carry the finished product through the finish line, and into vaguely entertaining territory. The rest of the cast ain't to shabby either - Bobby Cannavale, Stanley Tucci, Laverne Cox, David Bradley - all do pretty well with a patchy script (patchy sure, but I will admit that it made me laugh a few times...)
Other than that though, Jolt feels so familiar. It doesn't do anything new, which wouldn't be such an issue if it was exciting, but it just isn't. The action scenes are underwhelming, and it leans too heavily into the humorous side of things to be a serious thriller, whilst simultaneously trying too hard at the serious thriller aspect to be overly funny. The twist during the films finale is dumb as well - the whole thing would have worked better as a straightforward revenge flick. I also found the obvious sound stage set completely distracting. The scenery looked like and episode of Friends pretty frequently!
Got to admire the ambition to include a blatant set up for a sequel thats probably never going to happen though (complete with a mid credits scene...)
Jolt is a movie that thinks is smarter than it actually is, but it's entertaining enough (thanks in no small part to Kate Beckinsale) to justify a one time watch.
Other than that though, Jolt feels so familiar. It doesn't do anything new, which wouldn't be such an issue if it was exciting, but it just isn't. The action scenes are underwhelming, and it leans too heavily into the humorous side of things to be a serious thriller, whilst simultaneously trying too hard at the serious thriller aspect to be overly funny. The twist during the films finale is dumb as well - the whole thing would have worked better as a straightforward revenge flick. I also found the obvious sound stage set completely distracting. The scenery looked like and episode of Friends pretty frequently!
Got to admire the ambition to include a blatant set up for a sequel thats probably never going to happen though (complete with a mid credits scene...)
Jolt is a movie that thinks is smarter than it actually is, but it's entertaining enough (thanks in no small part to Kate Beckinsale) to justify a one time watch.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Nightmare Alley (2021) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
In short, Nightmare Alley is a sometimes plodding and bloated piece that gets by thanks to a hugely pleasing aesthetic, and a great cast.
Firstly, there is no reason for NA to be 150 minutes long. One could argue that it gives us more time with the many characters introduced, but it feels gratuitous. The first hour and a half has its moments for sure, but it sometimes feels a little direction-less before the last hour hits, and things kick off a bit. It's an issue that certainly impacts proceedings, and I feel it could have lost 30 minutes and been a tighter final product.
Thankfully, the assembled cast is stacked with royalty. Willem Dafoe and Toni Collette are two of my favourite working actors, so having them both involved is a treat. Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, and Rooney Mara are great as the main leads, and the rest of the ensemble is rounded out by some fantastic character actors - Richard Jenkins, Ron Perlman, Mary Steenburgen, David Strathairn - good stuff all round.
The overall visual style is wonderfully Del Toro, from the gloomy and misty carnival sights pierced by neon lights, to the snowy city scape of Buffalo, New York. A lot of the cinematography is gorgeous as well, hats off to Dan Laustsen, and is truly bought to life by a beautifully haunting music score from Nathan Johnson.
All in all, Nightmare Alley ultimately suffers from its pacing, and feels like a slog here and there. However, there are enough positives to carry it over the finish line. I look forward to checking out the black and white version in the near future.
Firstly, there is no reason for NA to be 150 minutes long. One could argue that it gives us more time with the many characters introduced, but it feels gratuitous. The first hour and a half has its moments for sure, but it sometimes feels a little direction-less before the last hour hits, and things kick off a bit. It's an issue that certainly impacts proceedings, and I feel it could have lost 30 minutes and been a tighter final product.
Thankfully, the assembled cast is stacked with royalty. Willem Dafoe and Toni Collette are two of my favourite working actors, so having them both involved is a treat. Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, and Rooney Mara are great as the main leads, and the rest of the ensemble is rounded out by some fantastic character actors - Richard Jenkins, Ron Perlman, Mary Steenburgen, David Strathairn - good stuff all round.
The overall visual style is wonderfully Del Toro, from the gloomy and misty carnival sights pierced by neon lights, to the snowy city scape of Buffalo, New York. A lot of the cinematography is gorgeous as well, hats off to Dan Laustsen, and is truly bought to life by a beautifully haunting music score from Nathan Johnson.
All in all, Nightmare Alley ultimately suffers from its pacing, and feels like a slog here and there. However, there are enough positives to carry it over the finish line. I look forward to checking out the black and white version in the near future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Joy (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Jennifer Lawrence (Joy), Robert De Niro (Rudy, Joy’s father),
Bradley Cooper (Neil Walker, Joy’s eventual boss), Edgar Ramirez (Tony,
Joy’s ex-husband), Isabella Rossellini (Trudy, Rudy’s girlfriend), Diane
Ladd (Mimi, Joy’s grandmother), Virginia Madsen (Terry, Joys mother),
and Elisabeth Röhm (Peggy, Joys half-sister)
Also making appearances that were notable to me were Susan Lucci as
Danica, a character seen on the TV soap opera that Joys mother Terry is
constantly watching, and Melissa Rivers, playing her mother Joan Rivers
on the TV channel QVC.
David O. Russel wrote, directed and produced the film, bringing the
headliners back for yet another go ‘round, after the successes of Silver
Linings Playbook and American Hustle.
Joy is a divorced mother of 2, living in a house with her Grandmother
Mimi, who she adores, her mother, who practically never leaves her room,
her 2 kids, and her ex-husband in the basement. Shortly after the film
begins, her father Rudy also moves into the basement.
Joy struggles through her life every day, never quite able to get ahead,
and always just barely making ends meet. Her grandmother has big dreams
for her and insists that Joy will “rise above” and “make something” of
her life, but Joy struggles to have faith, and indeed, to even begin to
figure out how to go about such a seeming monumental task.
The story follows Joy and her family through somewhat ridiculous
scenarios, and while it was acted well by Jennifer Lawrence, De Niro,
and most of the rest of the cast, I had a hard time really getting into
the film.
I kept finding myself wondering why Joys family wasn’t more supportive
and why they all, with the exception of her Mimi and her ex-husband,
seemed to be more trying to bring her down and keep her down, than
giving her a boost and a push up. I always have liked Robert De Niro,
but in this film found myself seriously disliking him. I suppose that
speaks to his ability as an actor and being able to portray a role in
which he is “supposed to be” less than 100% likeable.
Jennifer Lawrence as Joy shows tenaciousness, grit and a will to succeed
and “rise above”, at least once she gets to the point in the film where
she has “HAD ENOUGH” of being walked on and disregarded, and plays the
part wonderfully.
I kept hoping to like the movie better, but sadly, also kept waiting for
it to GET better.
Bradley Cooper (Neil Walker, Joy’s eventual boss), Edgar Ramirez (Tony,
Joy’s ex-husband), Isabella Rossellini (Trudy, Rudy’s girlfriend), Diane
Ladd (Mimi, Joy’s grandmother), Virginia Madsen (Terry, Joys mother),
and Elisabeth Röhm (Peggy, Joys half-sister)
Also making appearances that were notable to me were Susan Lucci as
Danica, a character seen on the TV soap opera that Joys mother Terry is
constantly watching, and Melissa Rivers, playing her mother Joan Rivers
on the TV channel QVC.
David O. Russel wrote, directed and produced the film, bringing the
headliners back for yet another go ‘round, after the successes of Silver
Linings Playbook and American Hustle.
Joy is a divorced mother of 2, living in a house with her Grandmother
Mimi, who she adores, her mother, who practically never leaves her room,
her 2 kids, and her ex-husband in the basement. Shortly after the film
begins, her father Rudy also moves into the basement.
Joy struggles through her life every day, never quite able to get ahead,
and always just barely making ends meet. Her grandmother has big dreams
for her and insists that Joy will “rise above” and “make something” of
her life, but Joy struggles to have faith, and indeed, to even begin to
figure out how to go about such a seeming monumental task.
The story follows Joy and her family through somewhat ridiculous
scenarios, and while it was acted well by Jennifer Lawrence, De Niro,
and most of the rest of the cast, I had a hard time really getting into
the film.
I kept finding myself wondering why Joys family wasn’t more supportive
and why they all, with the exception of her Mimi and her ex-husband,
seemed to be more trying to bring her down and keep her down, than
giving her a boost and a push up. I always have liked Robert De Niro,
but in this film found myself seriously disliking him. I suppose that
speaks to his ability as an actor and being able to portray a role in
which he is “supposed to be” less than 100% likeable.
Jennifer Lawrence as Joy shows tenaciousness, grit and a will to succeed
and “rise above”, at least once she gets to the point in the film where
she has “HAD ENOUGH” of being walked on and disregarded, and plays the
part wonderfully.
I kept hoping to like the movie better, but sadly, also kept waiting for
it to GET better.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Hustle (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: When you have a con artist film you need to be anticipating some twist in the heroes favour. This has that and you are left to figure out how he will pull it off, what happens between is very familiar with the differences between the hero and the guy he has to complete the job for. What is not familiar is that the hero starts to support the guys he is meant to be conning, mix in a love triangle and you do get something more original. The film never tries to take its self too serious which is what makes it good, but in the end you won’t be left thinking I have to watch this again. (7/10)
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nightmare Alley (2021) in Movies
Feb 4, 2022
Sum Does Not Add Up To The Total Of The Parts
If you ever want to understand the meaning of the term “the sum does not equal the total of the parts”, you need to look no further than the latest film from Guillermo Del Toro, the neo-noir thriller, NIGHTMARE ALLEY.
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Jacobites' Apprentice in Books
Nov 5, 2018
This book was first reviewed on Lily Loves Indie as part of a blog tour and was given as an ARC - http://lilylovesindie.co.uk/?p=312
There are several aspects I very much enjoy about David EbsworthÕs writing, however there is something I always wish was a little different Ð I wish his books were easier to get into from the start! #When youÕre hooked, youÕre hooked good and proper, but sometimes this just takes a little longer than some books and takes that little bit more perseverance. Well, thereÕs my niggle over with, and now IÕll tell you why I love this authorÕs work!
Firstly, for those who didnÕt know, history is a little bit of a passion of mine, and historical fiction, like this, is quite possibly my favourite genre. But why do you need to know this? Bear with me, IÕm getting there! With all that in mind, it really needs mentioning how accurate and detailed EbsworthÕs immersion into this historical period is. The research simply exudes from every page and it is very well written into the actual plot of the story. Ebsworth makes the plot tell the history, rather than the other way round and he does so magnificently.
In addition, and linked to my previous point, the language in this book is fantastic and completely in keeping with the time period. This, particularly in the dialogue, helps to really complete the experience of the reading, and it adds a whole new dimension. In fact, perhaps the thing that I like the most about this book is the very crucial fact that I learnt things whilst reading it. I have never read an author that imparts so much knowledge through a familiar medium of story telling, it really does show great skill and I doff my hat to Ebsworth.
Furthermore, something I really relished as I got further into the tale was how difficult this book was to put down. Considering the detailed start, where the story was laid out and we were introduced to the key players, this was a pleasant surprise and one I very much enjoyed. The plot twists and turns are great at keeping you on your toes and engaged in the tale, and the writing style is one that pulls you further into all of the characters lives, due to the way we see snippets into each of their thoughts. This is yet another great skill shown by Ebsworth as I know from experience how difficult it is to show their different viewpoints whilst not losing the thread of the story and also not losing the reader amongst all these characters, but Ebsworth does this with great skill and panache and it is truly a delight to read.
The final thing I want to mention is the characters, particularly Aran Owen and Striker, although the whole cast of assembled characters is truly varied and representative of the whole range of society. LetÕs start with Aran, a simple Welshman who got lucky, a talented painter and a key player in the struggle of the Jacobites. Now place him opposite Dudley Striker, an incredibly clever and calculating individual, but one who is also immensely cruel and has a very intense survival instinct. These two characters are the key players really, and they are fantastically well developed and a true delight to read. I honestly donÕt know how they work together, but they are just fantastic, especially when supported by the likes of Bradley, Titus and the sharp witted duo of Rosina and Mistress Cooper.
In conclusion, I have to doff my hat to Ebsworth. This is a fantastic story that weaves history, characters and a fantastic plot together to make a very enjoyable read. ItÕs the kind of book you have to think about as you read it, which suits me greatly, however it does make it somewhat difficult to dip into for a quick page or two at bedtime. That said, it is most definitely worth the effort as you are repaid hundred-fold with knowledge and a reading experience you wonÕt forget. For you history lovers, and those of you who enjoy a good book to really sink your teeth into, I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
There are several aspects I very much enjoy about David EbsworthÕs writing, however there is something I always wish was a little different Ð I wish his books were easier to get into from the start! #When youÕre hooked, youÕre hooked good and proper, but sometimes this just takes a little longer than some books and takes that little bit more perseverance. Well, thereÕs my niggle over with, and now IÕll tell you why I love this authorÕs work!
Firstly, for those who didnÕt know, history is a little bit of a passion of mine, and historical fiction, like this, is quite possibly my favourite genre. But why do you need to know this? Bear with me, IÕm getting there! With all that in mind, it really needs mentioning how accurate and detailed EbsworthÕs immersion into this historical period is. The research simply exudes from every page and it is very well written into the actual plot of the story. Ebsworth makes the plot tell the history, rather than the other way round and he does so magnificently.
In addition, and linked to my previous point, the language in this book is fantastic and completely in keeping with the time period. This, particularly in the dialogue, helps to really complete the experience of the reading, and it adds a whole new dimension. In fact, perhaps the thing that I like the most about this book is the very crucial fact that I learnt things whilst reading it. I have never read an author that imparts so much knowledge through a familiar medium of story telling, it really does show great skill and I doff my hat to Ebsworth.
Furthermore, something I really relished as I got further into the tale was how difficult this book was to put down. Considering the detailed start, where the story was laid out and we were introduced to the key players, this was a pleasant surprise and one I very much enjoyed. The plot twists and turns are great at keeping you on your toes and engaged in the tale, and the writing style is one that pulls you further into all of the characters lives, due to the way we see snippets into each of their thoughts. This is yet another great skill shown by Ebsworth as I know from experience how difficult it is to show their different viewpoints whilst not losing the thread of the story and also not losing the reader amongst all these characters, but Ebsworth does this with great skill and panache and it is truly a delight to read.
The final thing I want to mention is the characters, particularly Aran Owen and Striker, although the whole cast of assembled characters is truly varied and representative of the whole range of society. LetÕs start with Aran, a simple Welshman who got lucky, a talented painter and a key player in the struggle of the Jacobites. Now place him opposite Dudley Striker, an incredibly clever and calculating individual, but one who is also immensely cruel and has a very intense survival instinct. These two characters are the key players really, and they are fantastically well developed and a true delight to read. I honestly donÕt know how they work together, but they are just fantastic, especially when supported by the likes of Bradley, Titus and the sharp witted duo of Rosina and Mistress Cooper.
In conclusion, I have to doff my hat to Ebsworth. This is a fantastic story that weaves history, characters and a fantastic plot together to make a very enjoyable read. ItÕs the kind of book you have to think about as you read it, which suits me greatly, however it does make it somewhat difficult to dip into for a quick page or two at bedtime. That said, it is most definitely worth the effort as you are repaid hundred-fold with knowledge and a reading experience you wonÕt forget. For you history lovers, and those of you who enjoy a good book to really sink your teeth into, I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.