Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Tony Stark revealed his identity at the end of the last movie, he has become even more famous as the man that ended conflict in the world, the government want control over the suit and worry that other parts of the world could develop their own version of the suit. He must deal with his own mortality when the one thing keeping him alive, is making him sick. He will also need to fight for his father’s mistakes, pushing his closest friends away. Pepper Potts has been given a promotion by Tony, to CEO, she already runs his affairs, she is now running his company, while trying to control him during his self-destruction. Rhodey is still in his role in the military, he is still challenging Tony, but gets to use his own suit the correct way, for guiding the military. Natasha goes undercover in Stark’s company, she is a member of SHIELD where she uses her skills in combat to keep Tony out of trouble. Justin Hammer is a rival inventor still trying to get ahead of Tony in the weapons business, he has been working on his own Iron Man suit, without much success, he hires Ivan to build him a suit. Ivan Vanko has built his own weaponised suit, he is the son of a rival of Tony’ father, which sees him want to take revenge on Tony for his father’s action, becoming whiplash, the one man that has created a suit that could rival Iron Man.
Performances – Robert Downey Jr is still great to watch, he keeps the charisma required for his role, while bringing an emotional factor which is needed for where his character goes in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow does have a bigger role here and brings us a much stronger performance with her character. Don Cheadle is an improvement on Terrence Howard, bringing Rhodey to life more. Scarlett Johansson has the perfect look for this character which is only first jumping into the franchise. Sam Rockwell as another inventor arms dealer who is filled with the swagger required. Mickey Rourke as the villain has good motives he does everything he can even if he character does grumble a lot.
Story – The story follows up the beginning of Iron Man dealing with the idea that the military would want control of the equipment and the rest of the world will be playing catch up, with their own versions of the Iron Man suit. This is a strong world building exercise to the Iron Man universe, we get to see how SHIELD are operating in the shadows watching over the potential threats. We have a villain that is competition and another one that is out for personal revenge. We up the stakes in this one, Tony does have to deal with his own problems by needing to improve the suit and we get to set up the position of who is one the good side with teases of the eventual Avengers team up.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film relies on a couple of big scenes, we have the racing introduction, the mid-life crisis sequence and the showdown, each has their own way to make an impact. The sci-fi side of the film continues to show the technology advances that Tony is dealing with.
Settings – The film uses the settings more for the action with one of the most iconic action sequences in the franchise, we continue to see Tony’s lab which tends to get destroyed a lot too.
Special Effects – The special effects in the film make each fight, drone or Iron Man suit look realistic through the film which is what needed for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Monte Carlo entrance.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There is a small pacing issue.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun sequel that continues to build the universe we know now, Tony still needs to learn about his place and how to handle the suit which is important and shows the past could come back to haunt you.
Overall: Fun sequel.
Performances – Robert Downey Jr is still great to watch, he keeps the charisma required for his role, while bringing an emotional factor which is needed for where his character goes in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow does have a bigger role here and brings us a much stronger performance with her character. Don Cheadle is an improvement on Terrence Howard, bringing Rhodey to life more. Scarlett Johansson has the perfect look for this character which is only first jumping into the franchise. Sam Rockwell as another inventor arms dealer who is filled with the swagger required. Mickey Rourke as the villain has good motives he does everything he can even if he character does grumble a lot.
Story – The story follows up the beginning of Iron Man dealing with the idea that the military would want control of the equipment and the rest of the world will be playing catch up, with their own versions of the Iron Man suit. This is a strong world building exercise to the Iron Man universe, we get to see how SHIELD are operating in the shadows watching over the potential threats. We have a villain that is competition and another one that is out for personal revenge. We up the stakes in this one, Tony does have to deal with his own problems by needing to improve the suit and we get to set up the position of who is one the good side with teases of the eventual Avengers team up.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film relies on a couple of big scenes, we have the racing introduction, the mid-life crisis sequence and the showdown, each has their own way to make an impact. The sci-fi side of the film continues to show the technology advances that Tony is dealing with.
Settings – The film uses the settings more for the action with one of the most iconic action sequences in the franchise, we continue to see Tony’s lab which tends to get destroyed a lot too.
Special Effects – The special effects in the film make each fight, drone or Iron Man suit look realistic through the film which is what needed for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Monte Carlo entrance.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There is a small pacing issue.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun sequel that continues to build the universe we know now, Tony still needs to learn about his place and how to handle the suit which is important and shows the past could come back to haunt you.
Overall: Fun sequel.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Ghost Story in Books
May 14, 2019
Great story line (1 more)
Great characters
Don Wanderley is a writer who happens to meet a supernatural being, and this meeting causes his life to be turned upside down in the novel 'Ghost Story.' Wanderley's brother and uncle both die of strange circumstances, leading him to seek how their deaths came to be. What Wanderley finds is that they were both infatuated with two women: Alma Mobley and Ann- Veronica Moore; Mobley just so happens to be Don's ex-fiance'.
Even if it seems so, Wanderley is not the main character of this book, instead, we meet four older gentlemen who have been friends the majority of their lives: John, Lewis, Ricky and Sears. The four have created what they like to call 'the Chowder Society,' where they meet up in suit and tie at one of their houses to tell ghost stories. Sears tells one ghost story that will haunt them the rest of the book about his time as a teacher in a rural town known as Elmira: "Well, one of the most dreadful things in my life happened to me there, or it didn't happen and I imagined it all, but anyhow it scared the pants off me and eventually made it impossible for me to stay on. This is the worst story I know, and I've kept it locked up in my mind for fifty years."
After that story, strange things begin to happen in Milburn; a farmer named Elmer Scales, reports that his sheep have been slaughtered by having their throats slit and completely drained of blood, but there are no footprints nor blood stains where the sheep were killed: " 'Their throats were cut,' Elmer said to his wife. 'What did I tell you? Some crazyman's been out here. And -' his voice rose ' - a crazyman who can fly, because he didn't leave no prints.' "
When the reader finds out that the four life long friends have a dark secret that has seem to come back to haunt them, we witness them being killed off by a supernatural force, one by one. This story brings not only a great cast of characters and amazing story telling, but also twist and turns that are not seen from a mile away, like most paranormal thrillers have today.
The supernatural force readers are introduced to is a shape shifter, who takes on forms from a werewolf to a vampire " When he took off the dark glasses his eyes shone a uniform golden yellow. " But the book is not lacking on ghosts, either : "Then she saw a figure moving around out there and Nettie, who understood more than even her sister credited, fearfully watched it approach the house and barn. She uttered a few choked sounds, but knew that Rea would never hear them. The figure came nearer, hauntingly familiar. Nettie was afraid it was the boy from town Rea talked about - that wild boy in a rage that Rea had named him to police. She trembled, watching the figure come nearer across the field, imagining what life would be like if the boy did anything to Rea; and then squawked in terror and nearly tipped over the wheelchair. The man walking toward the barn was her brother Stringer, wearing the brown shirt he'd had on the day he died: it was covered with blood, just as it had been when they'd put him on the table and wrapped him in blankets, but his arms were whole."
The entire story takes place in the town of Milburn, with a few scenes outside of it, but because of this, there are so many secondary characters introduced that the reader may find themselves back tracking through the book just to remember who all of them are. On top of that, a lot of the characters are so much alike, that description can't even help tell who is who. Even our four main characters have similar descriptions, other than girth, that it takes a couple of chapters for readers to put a face to a name. Only some secondary characters become important enough to remember near the end of the book, this including a teenager named Peter.
'Ghost Story' is among the few paranormal books that can stand on it's own. There are scenes of hallucination that out-do those of the top paranormal writers of today. One of the most memorable scenes is with the character Lewis: "Lewis moved back and forth on the floorboards, willing his friends to return with the farmer's car. He did not want to look at the covered shape on the bed; he went to the window. Through the greasepaper he could see only vague orange light.. He glanced back at the sheet. 'Linda, ' he said miserably. " - the scene quickly changes - "He stood in a metal room, with gray metal walls. One light bulb hung from the ceiling. His wife lay under a sheet on a metal table. Lewis leaned over her body and sobbed. 'I won't bury you in the pond,' he said. 'I'll take you into the rose garden.' He touched his wife's lifeless fingers under the sheet and felt them twitch. He recoiled. "
When the ghost story is finally revealed from the main characters' past, pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together. To not give away too much, here is a portion of that story: " 'She said she was lonely,' Ricky said. 'Said she was sick of this damned town and all the hypocrites in it. She wanted to drink and she wanted to dance, and she didn't care who was shocked. Said this dead little town and all its dead little people could go to hell as far as she was concerned. And if we were men and not little boys, we'd damn the town too.' "
While our main characters are being killed off one by one, the town of Milburn is going through an odd blizzard that seems to put everyone on edge: " People settled down in front of the television and ate pizzas from the freezer and prayed that the power lines would stay up; they avoided one another. If you looked outside and saw your next-door neighbor fighting up his lawn to get to his front door, he looked unearthly, transformed by stress into a wild ragged frontier version of himself: you knew he'd damage anyone who threatened to touch his dwindling store of food. He'd been touched by that savage music you had tried to escape, and if he looked through your Thermopane picture window and saw you his eyes were barely human."
Although 'Ghost Story' was published in 1979, it still has a big impact on the way the paranormal genre is written today. Straub not only makes a convincing story line, but he also makes characters that the reader can actually care about. Even when we find out what has been going on in the small town of Milburn, the reader can still feel a very real threat from the supernatural force within it. 'Ghost Story' is by far the best paranormal thriller I have ever read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who believes that the past can come back to haunt you.
For more reviews by me, please check out my blog at goreandtea.com
Even if it seems so, Wanderley is not the main character of this book, instead, we meet four older gentlemen who have been friends the majority of their lives: John, Lewis, Ricky and Sears. The four have created what they like to call 'the Chowder Society,' where they meet up in suit and tie at one of their houses to tell ghost stories. Sears tells one ghost story that will haunt them the rest of the book about his time as a teacher in a rural town known as Elmira: "Well, one of the most dreadful things in my life happened to me there, or it didn't happen and I imagined it all, but anyhow it scared the pants off me and eventually made it impossible for me to stay on. This is the worst story I know, and I've kept it locked up in my mind for fifty years."
After that story, strange things begin to happen in Milburn; a farmer named Elmer Scales, reports that his sheep have been slaughtered by having their throats slit and completely drained of blood, but there are no footprints nor blood stains where the sheep were killed: " 'Their throats were cut,' Elmer said to his wife. 'What did I tell you? Some crazyman's been out here. And -' his voice rose ' - a crazyman who can fly, because he didn't leave no prints.' "
When the reader finds out that the four life long friends have a dark secret that has seem to come back to haunt them, we witness them being killed off by a supernatural force, one by one. This story brings not only a great cast of characters and amazing story telling, but also twist and turns that are not seen from a mile away, like most paranormal thrillers have today.
The supernatural force readers are introduced to is a shape shifter, who takes on forms from a werewolf to a vampire " When he took off the dark glasses his eyes shone a uniform golden yellow. " But the book is not lacking on ghosts, either : "Then she saw a figure moving around out there and Nettie, who understood more than even her sister credited, fearfully watched it approach the house and barn. She uttered a few choked sounds, but knew that Rea would never hear them. The figure came nearer, hauntingly familiar. Nettie was afraid it was the boy from town Rea talked about - that wild boy in a rage that Rea had named him to police. She trembled, watching the figure come nearer across the field, imagining what life would be like if the boy did anything to Rea; and then squawked in terror and nearly tipped over the wheelchair. The man walking toward the barn was her brother Stringer, wearing the brown shirt he'd had on the day he died: it was covered with blood, just as it had been when they'd put him on the table and wrapped him in blankets, but his arms were whole."
The entire story takes place in the town of Milburn, with a few scenes outside of it, but because of this, there are so many secondary characters introduced that the reader may find themselves back tracking through the book just to remember who all of them are. On top of that, a lot of the characters are so much alike, that description can't even help tell who is who. Even our four main characters have similar descriptions, other than girth, that it takes a couple of chapters for readers to put a face to a name. Only some secondary characters become important enough to remember near the end of the book, this including a teenager named Peter.
'Ghost Story' is among the few paranormal books that can stand on it's own. There are scenes of hallucination that out-do those of the top paranormal writers of today. One of the most memorable scenes is with the character Lewis: "Lewis moved back and forth on the floorboards, willing his friends to return with the farmer's car. He did not want to look at the covered shape on the bed; he went to the window. Through the greasepaper he could see only vague orange light.. He glanced back at the sheet. 'Linda, ' he said miserably. " - the scene quickly changes - "He stood in a metal room, with gray metal walls. One light bulb hung from the ceiling. His wife lay under a sheet on a metal table. Lewis leaned over her body and sobbed. 'I won't bury you in the pond,' he said. 'I'll take you into the rose garden.' He touched his wife's lifeless fingers under the sheet and felt them twitch. He recoiled. "
When the ghost story is finally revealed from the main characters' past, pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together. To not give away too much, here is a portion of that story: " 'She said she was lonely,' Ricky said. 'Said she was sick of this damned town and all the hypocrites in it. She wanted to drink and she wanted to dance, and she didn't care who was shocked. Said this dead little town and all its dead little people could go to hell as far as she was concerned. And if we were men and not little boys, we'd damn the town too.' "
While our main characters are being killed off one by one, the town of Milburn is going through an odd blizzard that seems to put everyone on edge: " People settled down in front of the television and ate pizzas from the freezer and prayed that the power lines would stay up; they avoided one another. If you looked outside and saw your next-door neighbor fighting up his lawn to get to his front door, he looked unearthly, transformed by stress into a wild ragged frontier version of himself: you knew he'd damage anyone who threatened to touch his dwindling store of food. He'd been touched by that savage music you had tried to escape, and if he looked through your Thermopane picture window and saw you his eyes were barely human."
Although 'Ghost Story' was published in 1979, it still has a big impact on the way the paranormal genre is written today. Straub not only makes a convincing story line, but he also makes characters that the reader can actually care about. Even when we find out what has been going on in the small town of Milburn, the reader can still feel a very real threat from the supernatural force within it. 'Ghost Story' is by far the best paranormal thriller I have ever read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who believes that the past can come back to haunt you.
For more reviews by me, please check out my blog at goreandtea.com
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Another TOY STORY triumph for PIXAR
When I first heard that Pixar was going to make a 4th TOY STORY film, I found myself firmly in the camp of "why are they doing this? The 3rd film tied off the trilogy marvelously well and 4th film was not needed" But...I trust Pixar, and when it was revealed that both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were back on board after reading the script, my fears were alleviated quite a bit, but I still had some unease in the pit of my stomach.
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Good casting, Scarlett and Florence felt like actual sisters. (1 more)
Good chemistry and acting from David Harbour and Rachel Weisz.
Not much of a thriller or thinker for a spy movie. (1 more)
One actor was greatly wasted in their role.
Scarlett's Swan Song Had Plenty of Action With A Decent StoryNatasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) are living what seems like a normal life in 1995 Ohio, with their parents, mother, Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz) and
Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) are living what seems like a normal life in 1995 Ohio, with their parents, mother, Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz) and father, Alexei Shostakov (David Harbour) when suddenly they must leave the country. They are all Russian undercover agents and Alexei, the super-soldier known as Red Guardian, has stolen intel from S.H.I.E.L.D. They flee to Cuba where the sisters are forcibly taken to the "Red Room" for training after they've met General Dreykov (Ray Winstone), their boss. Now in 2016 after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Natasha finds herself a fugitive on the run from U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) after violating the Sokovia Accords. She's attacked by an incredibly skilled assassin called the Taskmaster and finds that she's not his target but rather a package she had with her. After learning the package originated from Budapest she heads there where she finds her sister Yelena and learns of a plot that not only jeopardizes the safety of those trained in the "Red Room" but possibly the whole world.
This movie was really good and it was great to see a Marvel movie again. I didn't see this one in theaters but I still enjoyed watching it in the safety of my home with my family. So this movie came off like a really good spy/action movie but definitely had that Marvel feel to it. It really felt like watching something out of the Bourne or Bond series films but with admittedly less plot and gadgets, but the action was really spot on. There was awesome car chase scenes and expertly crafted fight choreography too. It was even reported that they went through 13 BMW X3's for the car chase scene with Scarlett and Florence so you can tell that they really wanted to get things right and had a vision of what they wanted the audience to see for that particular scene as well. I thought there was really great chemistry from all the actors together and that it was pretty good casting. Scarlett and Florence argue throughout the film just like real sisters, and the looks that David Harbour and Rachel Weisz exchange feel like they were genuinely together. The opening scene of the movie had great acting and was very emotional. I just feel like one role/actor was kind of a bad casting and/or was greatly underutilized. I think the biggest flaw of the move was that for being a spy movie, the plot never had any mystery to it and everything was kind of predictable or at least very easy to follow. Not much of a thriller or thinker where you had to put two and two together. The cinematography was spot on and felt like you were watching any big budget spy or action movie and on par with what you expect from Marvel Studios. The tone fit the film for the most part but kind of "see-saw"-ed from time to time as they mixed serious themes with comedic dialogue throughout. But that's to be expected from a PG-13 action/spy movie from Marvel and it was a little reminiscent of the film Captain America in that regard. The music was good and there were a couple of songs that stuck out in that regard American Pie by Don Mclean and a cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Think Up Anger; also Cheap Thrills by Sia. The musical score was also good and the Black Widow theme was pretty epic but also with hints of melancholy to it that seemed to underline both her tragic background as well as the tragedy of the events to come in her future. Altogether the movie was really good and I give it a 7/10. If you are big time into the MCU and Marvel franchise movies then this is a must see film but if not then it might come off as just a barely above average action/spy film so that's why it doesn't get my "Must See Seal of Approval"
This movie was really good and it was great to see a Marvel movie again. I didn't see this one in theaters but I still enjoyed watching it in the safety of my home with my family. So this movie came off like a really good spy/action movie but definitely had that Marvel feel to it. It really felt like watching something out of the Bourne or Bond series films but with admittedly less plot and gadgets, but the action was really spot on. There was awesome car chase scenes and expertly crafted fight choreography too. It was even reported that they went through 13 BMW X3's for the car chase scene with Scarlett and Florence so you can tell that they really wanted to get things right and had a vision of what they wanted the audience to see for that particular scene as well. I thought there was really great chemistry from all the actors together and that it was pretty good casting. Scarlett and Florence argue throughout the film just like real sisters, and the looks that David Harbour and Rachel Weisz exchange feel like they were genuinely together. The opening scene of the movie had great acting and was very emotional. I just feel like one role/actor was kind of a bad casting and/or was greatly underutilized. I think the biggest flaw of the move was that for being a spy movie, the plot never had any mystery to it and everything was kind of predictable or at least very easy to follow. Not much of a thriller or thinker where you had to put two and two together. The cinematography was spot on and felt like you were watching any big budget spy or action movie and on par with what you expect from Marvel Studios. The tone fit the film for the most part but kind of "see-saw"-ed from time to time as they mixed serious themes with comedic dialogue throughout. But that's to be expected from a PG-13 action/spy movie from Marvel and it was a little reminiscent of the film Captain America in that regard. The music was good and there were a couple of songs that stuck out in that regard American Pie by Don Mclean and a cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Think Up Anger; also Cheap Thrills by Sia. The musical score was also good and the Black Widow theme was pretty epic but also with hints of melancholy to it that seemed to underline both her tragic background as well as the tragedy of the events to come in her future. Altogether the movie was really good and I give it a 7/10. If you are big time into the MCU and Marvel franchise movies then this is a must see film but if not then it might come off as just a barely above average action/spy film so that's why it doesn't get my "Must See Seal of Approval"
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Django Unchained (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Writer-director Quentin Tarantino has returned in a big way with “Django Unchained” his homage to spaghetti Westerns. The film stars Jamie Foxx as a slave named Django who is part of a convoy of slaves being transported through Texas two years before the start of the Civil War. Django is unaware that his life is about to take a monumental turn when his caravan encounters Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) one dark evening. Schultz wishes to purchase Django, and when his current owners make the mistake of threatening the good doctor, he quickly turns the table on them and sets Django and his fellow slaves free. Schultz reveals to Django that he is in fact a bounty hunter and needs him to help identify three potential targets. Since Django last lived at the plantation where the three targets worked as overseers, he is essential to Schultz’s hunt. Schultz offers to free Django and pay him $75.00 for his assistance and the duo set off on their mission.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Lake House in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>All spoilers hidden.</b>
The Lake House sounded really interesting to me because of its weave of three stories that make the one mystifying disappearance of young baby Theo. Our first of the three stories comes from the perspective of young Alice during the earlier years of the 1900s, the second comes from current day, now serial author, Alice in the early 2000s and the last from troubled police detective Sadie. But wait there are more stories given to us in this book? But I thought it claimed there were only three? Well no there are at least 4 as we also get a very in depth tale from Alices mother's perspective too.
To begin with I really enjoyed this book and I looked forward to my travels everyday to give me a bit of down time with the opportunity for a good read too however when we got to about half way through I started to get a bit bored. I definitely feel that the story could have been cut down by quite a lot, it seemed in places that Morton was just rambling away, trying to add substance to the story that it could have easily done without. By the time the mystery was being solved I was actually quite fed up of all of the characters and just wanted to know what had happened to Theo so I could get on with my life. I wasnt even surprised by the time we got to the resolution of the mystery as Id already guessed it, so it was a little anticlimactic.
Lets talk about the characters for a minute shall we?
OK, so Alice. I understand that she lost her brother, <spoiler> and believed for most of her life that she was the reason he had gone missing,</spoiler> but I dont understand why that made her so cold and harsh? <spoiler> She made the choice to keep her secret to herself so it was her own fault she felt so guilty all the time, but there was no need for her to turn that bitterness onto everyone else.</spoiler> She changed so much from the young, spritely young girl she once was, to a boring old woman who ate bloody boiled eggs <i>everyday.</i>
Sadie was such a cliche. A police detective with such a strong connection with a previous case that she was asked to take some leave? A police detective with some underlying issue that makes it difficult for her to focus on her tasks without stepping back into the past each time? A police detective who just couldnt let go of the case in front of her and would do everything she possibly could to solve something that had been unsolvable for 70 years? <i>Well my god, Ive never seen such a character in a book before!</i> <spoiler> Can someone explain to me how this woman can come along and solve a 70 year old cold case just like that? And whats the fucking betting her grandad is the missing baby Theo! What an amazing and unpredictable end to the novel!</spoiler>
Eleanor was the only character in the book I couldnt decide if I liked or not. She was such a lovely young girl but had to turn into the strict Mother for her young children while Daddy was away which almost made her dislikable. But then we find out all that shes going through so much to keep her family afloat that we can forgive her for her stony personality. <i>But then,</i> we find out shes doing something morally questionable, <spoiler> her stupid affair,</spoiler> behind her family's back purely for her own pleasure with almost no regard for how it might make her children and husband feel. Now I have to say I didnt feel any sympathy for Eleanor once her actions were made known to the reader, and as soon as they were I knew what the end of the novel was going to be.
Can we also quickly talk about Ben Munro please he was such a hippy idiot.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/CK3smvJ4EJlug/giphy.gif"; width="442" height="249" alt="hippie"/>
<spoiler> There was nothing appealing about his character in the slightest and it makes me wonder why Eleanor fell for him so hard. There was nothing spectacular about his choice to live as a gypsy. He was a deluded, drippy loser who was terrified commitment, even to a fucking kettle. Why couldnt he have taken his son? Why did he choose to live his life in his caravan rather than looking after his son that he so apparently adored and treasured? Selfish, selfish, selfish!</spoiler>
Apart from all my annoyances with the characters and the lack of excitement I felt by the end of the novel, it wasnt the worst thing Ive ever read and I even thought I enjoyed it. But as its been over a week since Ive finished this and Ive had time to think about it, the more Ive realised how bloody annoyed it made me.
The Lake House sounded really interesting to me because of its weave of three stories that make the one mystifying disappearance of young baby Theo. Our first of the three stories comes from the perspective of young Alice during the earlier years of the 1900s, the second comes from current day, now serial author, Alice in the early 2000s and the last from troubled police detective Sadie. But wait there are more stories given to us in this book? But I thought it claimed there were only three? Well no there are at least 4 as we also get a very in depth tale from Alices mother's perspective too.
To begin with I really enjoyed this book and I looked forward to my travels everyday to give me a bit of down time with the opportunity for a good read too however when we got to about half way through I started to get a bit bored. I definitely feel that the story could have been cut down by quite a lot, it seemed in places that Morton was just rambling away, trying to add substance to the story that it could have easily done without. By the time the mystery was being solved I was actually quite fed up of all of the characters and just wanted to know what had happened to Theo so I could get on with my life. I wasnt even surprised by the time we got to the resolution of the mystery as Id already guessed it, so it was a little anticlimactic.
Lets talk about the characters for a minute shall we?
OK, so Alice. I understand that she lost her brother, <spoiler> and believed for most of her life that she was the reason he had gone missing,</spoiler> but I dont understand why that made her so cold and harsh? <spoiler> She made the choice to keep her secret to herself so it was her own fault she felt so guilty all the time, but there was no need for her to turn that bitterness onto everyone else.</spoiler> She changed so much from the young, spritely young girl she once was, to a boring old woman who ate bloody boiled eggs <i>everyday.</i>
Sadie was such a cliche. A police detective with such a strong connection with a previous case that she was asked to take some leave? A police detective with some underlying issue that makes it difficult for her to focus on her tasks without stepping back into the past each time? A police detective who just couldnt let go of the case in front of her and would do everything she possibly could to solve something that had been unsolvable for 70 years? <i>Well my god, Ive never seen such a character in a book before!</i> <spoiler> Can someone explain to me how this woman can come along and solve a 70 year old cold case just like that? And whats the fucking betting her grandad is the missing baby Theo! What an amazing and unpredictable end to the novel!</spoiler>
Eleanor was the only character in the book I couldnt decide if I liked or not. She was such a lovely young girl but had to turn into the strict Mother for her young children while Daddy was away which almost made her dislikable. But then we find out all that shes going through so much to keep her family afloat that we can forgive her for her stony personality. <i>But then,</i> we find out shes doing something morally questionable, <spoiler> her stupid affair,</spoiler> behind her family's back purely for her own pleasure with almost no regard for how it might make her children and husband feel. Now I have to say I didnt feel any sympathy for Eleanor once her actions were made known to the reader, and as soon as they were I knew what the end of the novel was going to be.
Can we also quickly talk about Ben Munro please he was such a hippy idiot.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/CK3smvJ4EJlug/giphy.gif"; width="442" height="249" alt="hippie"/>
<spoiler> There was nothing appealing about his character in the slightest and it makes me wonder why Eleanor fell for him so hard. There was nothing spectacular about his choice to live as a gypsy. He was a deluded, drippy loser who was terrified commitment, even to a fucking kettle. Why couldnt he have taken his son? Why did he choose to live his life in his caravan rather than looking after his son that he so apparently adored and treasured? Selfish, selfish, selfish!</spoiler>
Apart from all my annoyances with the characters and the lack of excitement I felt by the end of the novel, it wasnt the worst thing Ive ever read and I even thought I enjoyed it. But as its been over a week since Ive finished this and Ive had time to think about it, the more Ive realised how bloody annoyed it made me.
Kiruji (13 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
I'm not an X-Men fan. I know, it's strange, right? I mean, I'm a comic book fan in general. Iron Man's a dude. I dig the Hulk. I love all things Batman (except when Joel Schumacher tweaked the Batman's Batnipples). I geekgasmed all over my trousers in the lead up to THE DARK KNIGHT and actually watching it at an IMAX was like losing my virginity again. But the X-Men? Kinda leave me cold. Even though, on the face of it, it should be pretty awesome. Mutant humans with the ability to do just about anything you can imagine, fighting each other and various other bad things? Why the hell wouldn't I like that? But I could never get into it. The first X-Men movie, way back in 2000, left me feeling indifferent. It was OK, but nothing special. The second one was worse. The third one just plain awful. WOLVERINE: ORIGINS was quite fun, but then, a hard drinking, smoking, swearing brawler with friendly mutton-chops and blades in his hands was always going to be appealing to me.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.