Search
Search results
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Edible Woman in Books
May 24, 2017
An honest exploration of the roles of women, marriage, and entering adulthood
Marian is an average college-educated woman who lives with a roommate in a decent apartment, works for a survey company, is moderately good looking, and has a handsome fiancé who is on his way to being a big shot lawyer. It sounds like life altogether is going pretty well for Marian. Yet for some reason she feels empty, why?
The Edible Woman explores the themes of losing a sense of self with maturity. At work she is pushed around, her roommate Ainsley is inconsiderate, the landlady is judgmental, and her boyfriend Peter is self centered and makes snide comments at Marian’s expense, acting like he can barely tolerate her. With each encounter Marian puts aside her pride for the sake of avoiding conflict. Marian expresses her problems through eating, or the lack thereof, hinting at a potential eating disorder. Just as she feels inhibited in life, she suddenly feels inhibited with the kinds of food that she can eat.
As the story continues she begins to dread marriage and question the direction her life is going—becoming just as listless as her friend and former classmate Clara, who after marriage and three pregnancies just seems beaten down. Marian’s fiancé Peter is the stereotypical perfect bachelor: a man’s man that looks down on women and views marriage as a ball and chain. Peter pushes Marian around in order to mold her into a subservient woman. There is no longer any room for her thoughts, her feelings, or her desires from under his shadow.
But what about work? What are women’s roles in society and the work force? Throughout the story there are several women including Marian with college educations, yet none of them really have a stable career. Women are expected to be wives and mothers, there’s simply no time for an education or a job. In this case, their educations are ultimately viewed as their downfall due to the crushing reality of how little opportunity they would have. This was the very sad truth at the time the book was written and thankfully is not exactly the case now in most parts of the world.
Atwood tackles a large number of social issues throughout the book that I think would be important for any young woman. Adulthood, relationships, marriage, the choice between work and education versus starting a family, and lastly feminism—both good and bad. (Hint: Ainsely is a perfect example of a bad feminist.)
There are certain elements of the book that are becoming quite dated. Namely the typewriters, the social expectation that all women can be are housewives, and the limited ways that women can dress; These things might make it difficult for young women to look past and relate to the main character. Despite this the book is still incredibly relevant in the message that it brings about maintaining one’s individuality. I absolutely love this book and found a lot of my former self in it’s pages.
The Edible Woman explores the themes of losing a sense of self with maturity. At work she is pushed around, her roommate Ainsley is inconsiderate, the landlady is judgmental, and her boyfriend Peter is self centered and makes snide comments at Marian’s expense, acting like he can barely tolerate her. With each encounter Marian puts aside her pride for the sake of avoiding conflict. Marian expresses her problems through eating, or the lack thereof, hinting at a potential eating disorder. Just as she feels inhibited in life, she suddenly feels inhibited with the kinds of food that she can eat.
As the story continues she begins to dread marriage and question the direction her life is going—becoming just as listless as her friend and former classmate Clara, who after marriage and three pregnancies just seems beaten down. Marian’s fiancé Peter is the stereotypical perfect bachelor: a man’s man that looks down on women and views marriage as a ball and chain. Peter pushes Marian around in order to mold her into a subservient woman. There is no longer any room for her thoughts, her feelings, or her desires from under his shadow.
But what about work? What are women’s roles in society and the work force? Throughout the story there are several women including Marian with college educations, yet none of them really have a stable career. Women are expected to be wives and mothers, there’s simply no time for an education or a job. In this case, their educations are ultimately viewed as their downfall due to the crushing reality of how little opportunity they would have. This was the very sad truth at the time the book was written and thankfully is not exactly the case now in most parts of the world.
Atwood tackles a large number of social issues throughout the book that I think would be important for any young woman. Adulthood, relationships, marriage, the choice between work and education versus starting a family, and lastly feminism—both good and bad. (Hint: Ainsely is a perfect example of a bad feminist.)
There are certain elements of the book that are becoming quite dated. Namely the typewriters, the social expectation that all women can be are housewives, and the limited ways that women can dress; These things might make it difficult for young women to look past and relate to the main character. Despite this the book is still incredibly relevant in the message that it brings about maintaining one’s individuality. I absolutely love this book and found a lot of my former self in it’s pages.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated JESUS, Career Counselor: How to Find (and Keep) Your Perfect Work in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book sat on my desk for the longest time, half-read. I am a SAHM, stay-at-home mom, and I found this book had very little to do with my "career." Jones did eventually address this in the book, but only briefly, and it makes me wonder what the author's personal views are on women who choose my career. A perfect example of this is that at the end of every element section, she lists careers she considers appropriate for those that match that element, and none of the four lists mention a SAHM. Even when she discusses those who have been forced to leave their job or choose to leave their job, she views being stuck at home as a temporary place and describes how to move out of it, never considering that maybe Jesus wants it to be permanent.
Delving into the opening of the book, it is quickly apparent that the author assumes that the reader has read the author's previous books and will use these other books to produce a mission statement, personality profile, "four greatest talents", and a vision statement. As I have not read her previous works, and don't intend to, I felt I was at a further disadvantage from benefiting from reading this book.
Another mark against the book is that Jones does not stick with only one version of the Bible to quote from, and the only time she actually states which version she is quoting from is when she quotes the KJV - every other time is a mystery.
There are many positive points to the book, such as the organization. Each of the four elements are covered in-depth, with each of the four sections containing three chapters that each focus on a single word that fits that element, all beginning with the prefix "re-". Each of these words come with a detailed definition, and each chapter provides places for the reader to take notes and answer the author's questions, such as the "Make It Yours" sections and the "Career Exercises", with each chapter ending with a prayer. The "Bonus Features" at the end of each of the four sections list additional prayers, the aforementioned list of recommended occupations, and "Summary Points" of the three words defined in each section. The last section of the book has additional "Bonus Features," which is the authors' Book Picks, a list of Internet resources, a section on resumes, and a section titled "How to Deal with Sudden Job Loss / Reversal of Fortune." I do enjoy a well-organized book.
The anecdotes were entertaining and the advice seemed good and useful to those in the job market. I did appreciate Jones' goal of making Jesus central to a person's career, even if the methods by which she approaches this seemed more New Age than Biblical, despite the scripture quotes. Her writing was also very sensitive to the reader who has lost a job or is unhappy in his or her current job, which would be an appropriate way to address the reader in the current economy.
Delving into the opening of the book, it is quickly apparent that the author assumes that the reader has read the author's previous books and will use these other books to produce a mission statement, personality profile, "four greatest talents", and a vision statement. As I have not read her previous works, and don't intend to, I felt I was at a further disadvantage from benefiting from reading this book.
Another mark against the book is that Jones does not stick with only one version of the Bible to quote from, and the only time she actually states which version she is quoting from is when she quotes the KJV - every other time is a mystery.
There are many positive points to the book, such as the organization. Each of the four elements are covered in-depth, with each of the four sections containing three chapters that each focus on a single word that fits that element, all beginning with the prefix "re-". Each of these words come with a detailed definition, and each chapter provides places for the reader to take notes and answer the author's questions, such as the "Make It Yours" sections and the "Career Exercises", with each chapter ending with a prayer. The "Bonus Features" at the end of each of the four sections list additional prayers, the aforementioned list of recommended occupations, and "Summary Points" of the three words defined in each section. The last section of the book has additional "Bonus Features," which is the authors' Book Picks, a list of Internet resources, a section on resumes, and a section titled "How to Deal with Sudden Job Loss / Reversal of Fortune." I do enjoy a well-organized book.
The anecdotes were entertaining and the advice seemed good and useful to those in the job market. I did appreciate Jones' goal of making Jesus central to a person's career, even if the methods by which she approaches this seemed more New Age than Biblical, despite the scripture quotes. Her writing was also very sensitive to the reader who has lost a job or is unhappy in his or her current job, which would be an appropriate way to address the reader in the current economy.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Disaster with feeling
“Based on true events”. I can’t think of anything more disconcerting when I sit down to watch a film. When it comes to blockbusters inspired by real-life situations, the outcome can be a poignant movie that captures the heart and emotion of the episode – a la American Sniper.
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A delightful treat
If there’s one thing Pixar knows how to do, it’s create memorable films. Long after you’ve walked out the cinema, the likes of Wall.E and Finding Nemo stay with you.
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasn’t really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Brothers Grimsby (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
It's grim in England (apparently)
It’s probably accurate to say that Sacha Baron Cohen’s sense of humour is a little like marmite, it’s a love or hate kind of affair. Offering up characters like Borat and Bruno to the unsuspecting public has proved beneficial to him over the years; with the outlandish antics of those personalities drawing in massive audiences.
His latest offering, English football hooligan Nobby Butcher, promises to be one of his most controversial roles to date, but does the corresponding film, simply titled Grimsby, push the boundaries a little too far?
Cohen’s beer-drinking, benefit-swindling character stars alongside his long-lost brother Sebastian, played by an incredibly wasted Mark Strong. It just so happens that Seb is a secret agent, on the run after an incident at a global health event. What ensues is a formulaic Cohen comedy that utilises every orifice known to the human body – this is definitely low-brow humour.
After getting over the truly horrific portrayal of life up north, and the appalling representation of a town that is no-where near as bad as is reflected, Grimsby is actually a reasonably funny spy caper – not in the league of last year’s Spy – but certainly better than say Johnny English: Reborn or to some extent, Get Smart.
A talented cast bolsters Cohen and Strong with Nobby’s girlfriend Dawn, played by Rebel Wilson, providing some of the film’s funniest moments, despite her lack of screen time.
Elsewhere, Penelope Cruz’s role is a wasted opportunity and she suffers the same fate here as she did in Zoolander 2. Isla Fisher, Ricky Tomlinson and Johnny Vegas are unfortunately all underused as Clash of the Titans director Louis Leterrier focuses on the main pair.
Leterrier’s work on big blockbusters also helps move Grimsby through its ridiculously swift run time. At less than 90 minutes, the story is stretched to the brink, though there are some clever scenes, including a brilliantly choreographed chase through tight urban streets at the beginning.
Unfortunately, the gags miss their targets more than they hit. Your individual views on toilet humour will ultimately decide whether or not Grimsby is funny and some of the comedic elements intermittently cross the line, an ill-timed HIV joke being one of them.
It’s fair to say you’ll be cringing one minute, and roaring with embarrassed laughter the next.
Nevertheless, Cohen has promised time and time again that he has no time for personal opinions on his films and with each new character; he continues to deliver on that promise. Whether or not his target audience is getting tired is another story completely.
Overall, Grimsby is a movie that is unapologetic with what it is trying to achieve. From homophobic comments, casual racism and a grim depiction of life in Northern England, it’s everything we should despise in modern film-making. However, there’s just something about Cohen’s brazen attitude that keeps us coming back for more.
If you’re reading this Sacha, don’t visit Grimsby for a while, there’s a bounty on your head.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/27/its-grim-in-england-apparently-grimsby-review/
His latest offering, English football hooligan Nobby Butcher, promises to be one of his most controversial roles to date, but does the corresponding film, simply titled Grimsby, push the boundaries a little too far?
Cohen’s beer-drinking, benefit-swindling character stars alongside his long-lost brother Sebastian, played by an incredibly wasted Mark Strong. It just so happens that Seb is a secret agent, on the run after an incident at a global health event. What ensues is a formulaic Cohen comedy that utilises every orifice known to the human body – this is definitely low-brow humour.
After getting over the truly horrific portrayal of life up north, and the appalling representation of a town that is no-where near as bad as is reflected, Grimsby is actually a reasonably funny spy caper – not in the league of last year’s Spy – but certainly better than say Johnny English: Reborn or to some extent, Get Smart.
A talented cast bolsters Cohen and Strong with Nobby’s girlfriend Dawn, played by Rebel Wilson, providing some of the film’s funniest moments, despite her lack of screen time.
Elsewhere, Penelope Cruz’s role is a wasted opportunity and she suffers the same fate here as she did in Zoolander 2. Isla Fisher, Ricky Tomlinson and Johnny Vegas are unfortunately all underused as Clash of the Titans director Louis Leterrier focuses on the main pair.
Leterrier’s work on big blockbusters also helps move Grimsby through its ridiculously swift run time. At less than 90 minutes, the story is stretched to the brink, though there are some clever scenes, including a brilliantly choreographed chase through tight urban streets at the beginning.
Unfortunately, the gags miss their targets more than they hit. Your individual views on toilet humour will ultimately decide whether or not Grimsby is funny and some of the comedic elements intermittently cross the line, an ill-timed HIV joke being one of them.
It’s fair to say you’ll be cringing one minute, and roaring with embarrassed laughter the next.
Nevertheless, Cohen has promised time and time again that he has no time for personal opinions on his films and with each new character; he continues to deliver on that promise. Whether or not his target audience is getting tired is another story completely.
Overall, Grimsby is a movie that is unapologetic with what it is trying to achieve. From homophobic comments, casual racism and a grim depiction of life in Northern England, it’s everything we should despise in modern film-making. However, there’s just something about Cohen’s brazen attitude that keeps us coming back for more.
If you’re reading this Sacha, don’t visit Grimsby for a while, there’s a bounty on your head.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/27/its-grim-in-england-apparently-grimsby-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dad's Army (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of wasted British talent
I may be fairly young in years, but I grew up around comedies like Only Fools & Horses, One Foot in the Grave and of course Dad’s Army. I remember many evenings sitting at home with my dad as he cried with laughter at all three, though it was the latter’s influence that stuck with me the most.
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Wedding Ringer (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Best reserved for the DVD shelf
The comedy genre is one which goes through many cycles. You can go for years with lacklustre efforts featuring big-name celebrities like Norbit and Johnny English: Reborn, but every so often something special comes along to remind you how funny films can be – a la Bridesmaids or The Heat.
This year’s first offering is The Wedding Ringer. Fronted by Kevin Hart and Josh Gad, it follows the story of a loner who is forced to hire a best man to ensure his upcoming wedding goes without a hitch. But will it have you in fits of laughter or running from the altar?
Jeremy Garelick directs a film that despite a few chuckles here and there and the odd laugh-out-loud moment never really manages to settle into a groove and as such it all feels a little, well vanilla.
Dough Harris (Gad) is a man with a secret, one so big he is unable to share it with his obnoxious fiancée Gretchen – the normally adorable Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting in an against type performance. He simply hasn’t got any friends and is forced to hire Jimmy Callahan (Hart) as his best man to make himself look less of a loser.
Naturally things don’t go quite to plan with a selection of mildly amusing set-pieces involving bachelor parties, dogs and dancing interspersed with genuinely touching scenes which look at self-worth and finding true love and friendship.
Unfortunately this is where things begin to unravel. A mixture of slapstick and more complex comedic elements are put into a film which isn’t quite sure which genre it is trying to be, outright comedy or romantic comedy drama.
Hart plays Jimmy well and Gad is good as the bumbling yet sweet Doug, but the former seems to be on autopilot for the majority of The Wedding Ringer’s 101 minute running time while the latter seems to be just going through the motions, exhibiting no real connection with the script.
Other characters including a selection of hired groomsmen and close family barely register as cardboard cut-outs, never mind major characters in a motion picture.
However, the real fun to be had here is in the more childish sequences with one involving a dog, and another featuring an extended danceringer-dancing sequence having the audience in fits of laughter, though again these moments are few and far between.
Ultimately then, The Wedding Ringer isn’t as disappointing as it could have been but falls short of the comedic standard that audiences now expect when paying the increasingly expensive price of a cinema ticket.
Despite some reasonably charming performances, a couple of stand-out scenes and a cracking soundtrack, The Wedding Ringer fits into a bracket reserved for comedy films which could have delivered so much, but in the end just didn’t go quite far enough and it leaves Bridesmaids at the top of the pile for wedding-themed hilarity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/22/best-reserved-for-the-dvd-shelf-the-wedding-ringer-review/
This year’s first offering is The Wedding Ringer. Fronted by Kevin Hart and Josh Gad, it follows the story of a loner who is forced to hire a best man to ensure his upcoming wedding goes without a hitch. But will it have you in fits of laughter or running from the altar?
Jeremy Garelick directs a film that despite a few chuckles here and there and the odd laugh-out-loud moment never really manages to settle into a groove and as such it all feels a little, well vanilla.
Dough Harris (Gad) is a man with a secret, one so big he is unable to share it with his obnoxious fiancée Gretchen – the normally adorable Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting in an against type performance. He simply hasn’t got any friends and is forced to hire Jimmy Callahan (Hart) as his best man to make himself look less of a loser.
Naturally things don’t go quite to plan with a selection of mildly amusing set-pieces involving bachelor parties, dogs and dancing interspersed with genuinely touching scenes which look at self-worth and finding true love and friendship.
Unfortunately this is where things begin to unravel. A mixture of slapstick and more complex comedic elements are put into a film which isn’t quite sure which genre it is trying to be, outright comedy or romantic comedy drama.
Hart plays Jimmy well and Gad is good as the bumbling yet sweet Doug, but the former seems to be on autopilot for the majority of The Wedding Ringer’s 101 minute running time while the latter seems to be just going through the motions, exhibiting no real connection with the script.
Other characters including a selection of hired groomsmen and close family barely register as cardboard cut-outs, never mind major characters in a motion picture.
However, the real fun to be had here is in the more childish sequences with one involving a dog, and another featuring an extended danceringer-dancing sequence having the audience in fits of laughter, though again these moments are few and far between.
Ultimately then, The Wedding Ringer isn’t as disappointing as it could have been but falls short of the comedic standard that audiences now expect when paying the increasingly expensive price of a cinema ticket.
Despite some reasonably charming performances, a couple of stand-out scenes and a cracking soundtrack, The Wedding Ringer fits into a bracket reserved for comedy films which could have delivered so much, but in the end just didn’t go quite far enough and it leaves Bridesmaids at the top of the pile for wedding-themed hilarity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/22/best-reserved-for-the-dvd-shelf-the-wedding-ringer-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Lying Game in Books
Jan 21, 2018
Predictable (1 more)
Slow-moving
Isa, Kate, Fatima, and Thea were the best of friends for a year in boarding school. Thick as thieves, they kept to themselves at Salten House, bonded by a game they invented (The Lying Game), where they came up with increasingly higher stakes lies for a series of points and boasting rights. The girls spent much of their time at The Mill House, Kate's childhood home--a quick walk across the marsh from their boarding school and home to Kate's father, Ambrose, and stepbrother, Luc. But all that changes when Ambrose, an art teacher at Salten, dies; a scandal is uncovered; and the girls are expelled. Years pass without the four women seeing each other, until they receive a text from Kate: I need you. Isa--with her baby daughter in tow, Fatima, and Thea return to The Mill House, where Kate still lives, to help their friend. But what exactly happened all those years ago? And are the women still playing The Lying Game?
So I probably enjoyed this novel more than I should have, considering it's rather predictable. There are so few characters in the book as a whole, it seems, for the ending to be that grand of a surprise. It's also a slow-moving mystery where much of the drama could be avoided if the characters would just talk to each other or tell the truth - ever. The main character, Isa, puts her baby in danger far more often than a reasonable parent would, and for what? Even worse, while Isa is a fairly well-developed main character, her three best friends seem to be more of cliches or stereotypes than fleshed out characters.
Still, Ware has had this hold on me on each of her two previous novels--and she did it again here. The book is just oddly readable, and I found myself drawn to it, despite its flaws, so I have to give that to her. I read it rather quickly, despite being swamped at work, and found myself sneaking away to finish it on my lunch break. It's very descriptive, just like her first two books, and you can easily picture the eerie setting. Even if you're not fully invested in what's happening or you're pretty sure what's going to happen, or who was involved, there's just something compelling that makes you keep reading. The novel is told from Isa's point of view, unfolding in the present, but flashing back to her memories of the past. It's a rather effective technique, as we only figure out plot pieces as she does and can discern bits and pieces of the story through Isa's perspective alone.
Overall, I'd hoped for a bit more, and I probably enjoyed Ware's first two novels as a cohesive whole more than this one. But I won't deny that I found this book intriguing and that it kept me reading. There's certainly a lot in the novel that requires you to suspend some elements of disbelief. Still, I'll definitely continue to read anything Ware writes--she just has a fascinating style.
So I probably enjoyed this novel more than I should have, considering it's rather predictable. There are so few characters in the book as a whole, it seems, for the ending to be that grand of a surprise. It's also a slow-moving mystery where much of the drama could be avoided if the characters would just talk to each other or tell the truth - ever. The main character, Isa, puts her baby in danger far more often than a reasonable parent would, and for what? Even worse, while Isa is a fairly well-developed main character, her three best friends seem to be more of cliches or stereotypes than fleshed out characters.
Still, Ware has had this hold on me on each of her two previous novels--and she did it again here. The book is just oddly readable, and I found myself drawn to it, despite its flaws, so I have to give that to her. I read it rather quickly, despite being swamped at work, and found myself sneaking away to finish it on my lunch break. It's very descriptive, just like her first two books, and you can easily picture the eerie setting. Even if you're not fully invested in what's happening or you're pretty sure what's going to happen, or who was involved, there's just something compelling that makes you keep reading. The novel is told from Isa's point of view, unfolding in the present, but flashing back to her memories of the past. It's a rather effective technique, as we only figure out plot pieces as she does and can discern bits and pieces of the story through Isa's perspective alone.
Overall, I'd hoped for a bit more, and I probably enjoyed Ware's first two novels as a cohesive whole more than this one. But I won't deny that I found this book intriguing and that it kept me reading. There's certainly a lot in the novel that requires you to suspend some elements of disbelief. Still, I'll definitely continue to read anything Ware writes--she just has a fascinating style.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Silence for the Dead in Books
Mar 29, 2018
Good ghost story, slow dragged out ending
Anything to do with a horror ghost theme and an asylum has to be good right? Well, yes and no. The book was somewhat enjoyable to read but it had its’ moments.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.