Search
Search results
Nick Rhodes recommended Remain in Light by Talking Heads in Music (curated)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Blame in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Imagine, several years of your life just vanish as a result of an accident, but all you know is that the person you were with was killed and everyone blames you. This is situation Jeff Abbott tackles in Blame, an engaging thriller with an ending I didn’t expect.
Jane Norton is hiding something, and although we vaguely know pretty early on what has happened to her, she is an amnesiac and not portrayed in the best light. Why was she in the car with David, the boy who died? Who wrote the note they found at the scene of the car crash, which appeared to be written in Jane’s handwriting stating “I wish we were dead together”?
The slow start of the story reflects her altered perception of things in a way which explores how she came to be in the state she is, piecing together what happened, in her own disorientated way. I felt sorry for her, yet slightly annoyed at her behaviour. Yes, she is flawed, but she is also scared and frustrated. Does she deserve the treatment some throw at her? Would you be able to forgive her if you knew the truth? As the story progressed I found I was beginning to revel in Jane’s take no sh^t attitude and she grew on me even more.
I took a while to get into this, but glad I stuck it out. That’s never a good expression to put into a review, but it is how I felt. Despite this, the plot did indeed gather speed and there were twists and turns galore, which raced to a final conclusion that made reading this book all worthwhile.
Jane Norton is hiding something, and although we vaguely know pretty early on what has happened to her, she is an amnesiac and not portrayed in the best light. Why was she in the car with David, the boy who died? Who wrote the note they found at the scene of the car crash, which appeared to be written in Jane’s handwriting stating “I wish we were dead together”?
The slow start of the story reflects her altered perception of things in a way which explores how she came to be in the state she is, piecing together what happened, in her own disorientated way. I felt sorry for her, yet slightly annoyed at her behaviour. Yes, she is flawed, but she is also scared and frustrated. Does she deserve the treatment some throw at her? Would you be able to forgive her if you knew the truth? As the story progressed I found I was beginning to revel in Jane’s take no sh^t attitude and she grew on me even more.
I took a while to get into this, but glad I stuck it out. That’s never a good expression to put into a review, but it is how I felt. Despite this, the plot did indeed gather speed and there were twists and turns galore, which raced to a final conclusion that made reading this book all worthwhile.
Ali A (78 KP) rated When We Were Vikings in Books
Mar 4, 2020
When We Were Vikings is about Zelda, a high functioning 21 year old diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, who is a Viking enthusiast trying to figure out her life quest. Zelda lives with her brother Gert after both of their parents died when they were young. Gert and his on again/off again girlfriend Annie, whom Zelda calls AK47, make up Zelda's main tribe. Together, they try to figure out their legacies.
Andrew David MacDonald delivered an amazing story. I absolutely adored the character of Zelda. The way she loved Vikings and applied the Viking culture to make it through life's difficulties was endearing. I loved Zelda and I just wanted her to succeed. Her blunt, unembellished language was easy to read and refreshing. Whether it's telling off thugs or talking about sex and periods, Zelda says what she thinks.
Her brother Gert also tried to figure out how to not only live his life and figure the world out, but also tried to help Zelda figure hers out. He attempted to work with the cards he'd been dealt, but in all honesty, he seemed to constantly grab from the pile ones that just made life harder - he was always making messes that others were cleaning up after, even Zelda herself. I just wanted to sit him down and tell him to get it together and keep it together.
This book had a lot of concepts in it that worked for me. The characters are both quirky and realistic. It's endearing and heartwarming; it's full of love and hate. Some portions of the book made me laugh out loud while others made me want to slam the book shut out of frustration. It had some light themes but also some pretty dark themes. When We Were Vikings earned a spot on my Recommended Fiction List.
"...The point is you're willing to give it a try. That's what makes someone a legend."
Andrew David MacDonald delivered an amazing story. I absolutely adored the character of Zelda. The way she loved Vikings and applied the Viking culture to make it through life's difficulties was endearing. I loved Zelda and I just wanted her to succeed. Her blunt, unembellished language was easy to read and refreshing. Whether it's telling off thugs or talking about sex and periods, Zelda says what she thinks.
Her brother Gert also tried to figure out how to not only live his life and figure the world out, but also tried to help Zelda figure hers out. He attempted to work with the cards he'd been dealt, but in all honesty, he seemed to constantly grab from the pile ones that just made life harder - he was always making messes that others were cleaning up after, even Zelda herself. I just wanted to sit him down and tell him to get it together and keep it together.
This book had a lot of concepts in it that worked for me. The characters are both quirky and realistic. It's endearing and heartwarming; it's full of love and hate. Some portions of the book made me laugh out loud while others made me want to slam the book shut out of frustration. It had some light themes but also some pretty dark themes. When We Were Vikings earned a spot on my Recommended Fiction List.
"...The point is you're willing to give it a try. That's what makes someone a legend."
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Trying to climb a slippery pole.
As John Lennon’s lyrics go:
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
It is an inevitability in life that eventually you will watch all the films in the Harry Potter world, whether you want to or not. Mostly, I want to, but do find them a little difficult to hold in my mind as separate entities. I remember that I saw each one and generally enjoyed the magic and inventiveness of them, but pushed to identify which set piece happens in which film would probably stump me.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first of the extended world of J. K. Rowling’s wizarding wonderland, is no exception. Couldn’t tell you a single thing that happened, having seen it once over a year ago. But I can tell you I thought it was slightly better than I thought it would be. And the same goes for the sequel, which I thought had a nice balance of the dark and light elements, and some really entertaining sequences.
Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander particularly impresses me in this context, being such a mild mannered hero, with a twinkle in his eye and hidden depths: an interesting character to observe. As do Johnny Depp, as the titular Grindelwald, and Jude Law as a younger Dumbledore – two ageing actors it is becoming increasingly hard to cast these days, but who are very well placed here. There is also some nice support from Ezra Miller and Katherine Waterston, both of who I wish would do more high profile stuff and Zoë Kravitz, who keeps popping up on my radar.
Of course, the effects are pretty good: this franchise has a few quid. And David Yates knows his way around this stuff competently enough by now, it being his 6th film in the Potter universe. He is also already signed on for a further 3 of these, making it a very lively franchise, with one film a year scheduled for the foreseeable future. I have no argument with them. They don’t change the world, but as distracting entertainment they are perfectly fine. I know I’d be chuffed as a parent of a youngish child that at least something semi intelligent and magical was out there.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first of the extended world of J. K. Rowling’s wizarding wonderland, is no exception. Couldn’t tell you a single thing that happened, having seen it once over a year ago. But I can tell you I thought it was slightly better than I thought it would be. And the same goes for the sequel, which I thought had a nice balance of the dark and light elements, and some really entertaining sequences.
Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander particularly impresses me in this context, being such a mild mannered hero, with a twinkle in his eye and hidden depths: an interesting character to observe. As do Johnny Depp, as the titular Grindelwald, and Jude Law as a younger Dumbledore – two ageing actors it is becoming increasingly hard to cast these days, but who are very well placed here. There is also some nice support from Ezra Miller and Katherine Waterston, both of who I wish would do more high profile stuff and Zoë Kravitz, who keeps popping up on my radar.
Of course, the effects are pretty good: this franchise has a few quid. And David Yates knows his way around this stuff competently enough by now, it being his 6th film in the Potter universe. He is also already signed on for a further 3 of these, making it a very lively franchise, with one film a year scheduled for the foreseeable future. I have no argument with them. They don’t change the world, but as distracting entertainment they are perfectly fine. I know I’d be chuffed as a parent of a youngish child that at least something semi intelligent and magical was out there.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 12 Hour Shift (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
As the night shift starts at the hospital, a drug-addicted nurse finds herself in hot water. A simple black market organ exchange goes awry and she finds herself having to attempt to acquire new organs to save her cousin from the traffickers' wrath.
Almost immediately I was concerned with the pace of the film, it seemed to drag, which didn't really fit with what I'd envisioned from the synopsis and the trailer. I needn't have worried though as everything picked up quite quickly. The hospital makes for a great centrepiece once the action settles there, the cutting between rooms and characters kept it all moving and leaves the viewer with little time to lose interest in what's happening.
Angela Betis was a fun lead. Overworked and underpaid, Mandy is dealing with her problems the only way she knows how. Her attitude about things is all over the place and she sways wildly between what is right and wrong. Bettis manages to make Mandy relatable, particularly that look that says "people are idiots", I felt her pain. It's a great portrayal and she plays off well against all the other characters.
Mandy's ditzy cousin Regine (who inspires a lot of those aforementioned looks) is such a funny addition, she adds something light-hearted to the proceedings and I'm honestly not sure how she ever got a job trafficking organs. Having her in the film did make me think that there could have been some more humour in the mix, but the balance as it was did suit the film.
The rest of that cast were good but it might have been nice to see more of some of them. David Arquette felt underused considering the promo shots I kept seeing for it had him front and centre, and one of the original blurbs even had him as part of the main plot when that absolutely isn't the case.
12 Hour Shift is an entertaining romp and I love the way it's brought full circle. As it is it's a great thriller with some comedy thrown in. It definitely could have taken a lot more obvious humour on-board but that probably would have turned it into a very different film, and whilst almost certainly entertaining I think I would have missed not seeing this version.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/12-hour-shift-movie-review.html
Almost immediately I was concerned with the pace of the film, it seemed to drag, which didn't really fit with what I'd envisioned from the synopsis and the trailer. I needn't have worried though as everything picked up quite quickly. The hospital makes for a great centrepiece once the action settles there, the cutting between rooms and characters kept it all moving and leaves the viewer with little time to lose interest in what's happening.
Angela Betis was a fun lead. Overworked and underpaid, Mandy is dealing with her problems the only way she knows how. Her attitude about things is all over the place and she sways wildly between what is right and wrong. Bettis manages to make Mandy relatable, particularly that look that says "people are idiots", I felt her pain. It's a great portrayal and she plays off well against all the other characters.
Mandy's ditzy cousin Regine (who inspires a lot of those aforementioned looks) is such a funny addition, she adds something light-hearted to the proceedings and I'm honestly not sure how she ever got a job trafficking organs. Having her in the film did make me think that there could have been some more humour in the mix, but the balance as it was did suit the film.
The rest of that cast were good but it might have been nice to see more of some of them. David Arquette felt underused considering the promo shots I kept seeing for it had him front and centre, and one of the original blurbs even had him as part of the main plot when that absolutely isn't the case.
12 Hour Shift is an entertaining romp and I love the way it's brought full circle. As it is it's a great thriller with some comedy thrown in. It definitely could have taken a lot more obvious humour on-board but that probably would have turned it into a very different film, and whilst almost certainly entertaining I think I would have missed not seeing this version.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/12-hour-shift-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hawkeye in TV
Dec 23, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Marvel Studios continue their streak of enjoyable mini-series with Hawkeye, a series that was met with a fair amount of indifference upon its announcement, which is understandable. On the surface , Clint Barton isn't the most exciting Avenger to build a series around, but Hawkeye surprises with a team of decent writers, and a story adapted from Matt Fraction and David Aja's acclaimed comic book run.
Most of Barton's specific plot beats revolve around his family, and his loss of hearing. The human elements ensure that he remains a relatable, street level character. The "Hawkeye" that this series is really about of course is MCU newcomer Kate Bishop, a fan favourite comic character who is portrayed wonderfully by Hailee Steinfeld. The series is essentially her origin story, and I for one can't wait to see her in future projects. The chemistry between Steinfeld and Jeremy Renner is great, and provides a huge amount of heart to the overall story.
Florence Pugh has a welcome return as Yelena, and her involvement ensures that Hawkeye is as much of a tribute to Black Widow as anything else, and serves some much needed closure for her concluded story arc that has been frustratingly absent since the events of Avengers: Endgame.
Elsewhere, the likes of Vera Farmiga, Tony Dalton, and Alaqua Cox make up a strong supporting cast, and sets up an upcoming series for Echo, a deeper cut from the Marvel vaults, but one that I'm intrigued to see develop.
And then of course, there's motherfucking Kingpin. Arguably the most popular character from the Netflix shows, the decision to bring Vincent Donofrio back as Wilson Fisk is a smart one. His presence in the MCU is incredibly exciting to me, and Donofrio does and excellent job once again, at filling the boots of one of Marvel's most intimidating villains. Welcome back sir.
There are plenty of exciting action set pieces sprinkled throughout (a car chase involving various trick arrows is a particular highlight) and the decision to keep Hawkeye firmly street level in its execution is a wise one. It allows New York City to feel like a character in it's own right, and the Christmas setting adds to that. It does feel like a proper holiday watch at times, and this is probably why the show feels so goofy on more than one occasion. I know that the MCU likes to keep the mood light for the most part, and is often found guilty of undercutting serious or epic moments with jokes. Hawkeye occasionally goes overboard with these moments, especially in the finale. It's not enough to derail what is an incredibly entertaining series, but it's a little frustrating.
Overall though, Hawkeye is another decent and fleshed out mini series in this sprawling franchise. The extra runtime of a season has ensured that all of the MCU shows this year have been high quality and worth watching. I just hope it's not too long until we get a Kate Bishop/Yelena reunion!
Most of Barton's specific plot beats revolve around his family, and his loss of hearing. The human elements ensure that he remains a relatable, street level character. The "Hawkeye" that this series is really about of course is MCU newcomer Kate Bishop, a fan favourite comic character who is portrayed wonderfully by Hailee Steinfeld. The series is essentially her origin story, and I for one can't wait to see her in future projects. The chemistry between Steinfeld and Jeremy Renner is great, and provides a huge amount of heart to the overall story.
Florence Pugh has a welcome return as Yelena, and her involvement ensures that Hawkeye is as much of a tribute to Black Widow as anything else, and serves some much needed closure for her concluded story arc that has been frustratingly absent since the events of Avengers: Endgame.
Elsewhere, the likes of Vera Farmiga, Tony Dalton, and Alaqua Cox make up a strong supporting cast, and sets up an upcoming series for Echo, a deeper cut from the Marvel vaults, but one that I'm intrigued to see develop.
And then of course, there's motherfucking Kingpin. Arguably the most popular character from the Netflix shows, the decision to bring Vincent Donofrio back as Wilson Fisk is a smart one. His presence in the MCU is incredibly exciting to me, and Donofrio does and excellent job once again, at filling the boots of one of Marvel's most intimidating villains. Welcome back sir.
There are plenty of exciting action set pieces sprinkled throughout (a car chase involving various trick arrows is a particular highlight) and the decision to keep Hawkeye firmly street level in its execution is a wise one. It allows New York City to feel like a character in it's own right, and the Christmas setting adds to that. It does feel like a proper holiday watch at times, and this is probably why the show feels so goofy on more than one occasion. I know that the MCU likes to keep the mood light for the most part, and is often found guilty of undercutting serious or epic moments with jokes. Hawkeye occasionally goes overboard with these moments, especially in the finale. It's not enough to derail what is an incredibly entertaining series, but it's a little frustrating.
Overall though, Hawkeye is another decent and fleshed out mini series in this sprawling franchise. The extra runtime of a season has ensured that all of the MCU shows this year have been high quality and worth watching. I just hope it's not too long until we get a Kate Bishop/Yelena reunion!