Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1074 KP) rated HIS Fantasy (HIS #8) in Books
Feb 6, 2018
a fitting end
I was gifted my copy of this book, direct from the author, that I write a review was not required.
This is book 8 in the HIS series, but they all can be read as stand alones. However reading them in order will give you a better understanding of how the Hamilton family works, and just why Brad fights so hard against falling in love.
Brad Hamilton is the last man standing. (had to say, I chuckled when that appeared in the book!) The last brother to meet t after he said something, she left him. Now Madison is back in town and in danger, so of course Brad goes all ALPHA male on her. But Brad has secrets. and when those secrets threaten Madison, the Hamilton brothers pull out all the stops, to not only keep Madison safe, but to clear their brother's name.
It's always sad to come to the end of a series, especially one you have watched grow from the very first one, one you have watched the author's skill grow with every book along the way. Brad's story is a fitting end to an amazing journey.
Brad's secret has been hinted at along the way, but never fully revealed until now, and I did like being kept waiting on that front. That Brad didn't actually do anything wrong, he just thought he had, shows the depth of character Brad has. His brothers never doubted him, and neither does Madison when she gets the full story.
Brad and Madison's chemistry is hot off the charts, but I liked that it takes them time to finally give in to their feelings, and when Brad falls, he falls HARD and he falls FAST. Madison is half in love with Brad from the very beginning, I think!
I loved that ALL the brothers pop in and out at some part of this story, and Blake and Elizabeth too. We get to catch up with all the babies born, and those on the way, and I really don't think it will be long before Brad and Madison have their own news to share.
I loved the planning of them all being together at Thanksgiving, and the table cloth idea was a fabulous idea I may well steal! Maybe at some point in the future, we can drop in on their Thanksgiving, just to catch up with everyone. I often wonder whether, when their series is finished whether characters actually shut up on their authors, or just lurk in the background waiting to pounce!
It did not feel as long a read as the others, but page length is pretty consistent through the brothers books, but dad's book is only short.
A fitting end, I think. I can't wait to see what Ms Kell comes up with next.
Thank you, for writing these books, I will miss them all.
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 8 in the HIS series, but they all can be read as stand alones. However reading them in order will give you a better understanding of how the Hamilton family works, and just why Brad fights so hard against falling in love.
Brad Hamilton is the last man standing. (had to say, I chuckled when that appeared in the book!) The last brother to meet t after he said something, she left him. Now Madison is back in town and in danger, so of course Brad goes all ALPHA male on her. But Brad has secrets. and when those secrets threaten Madison, the Hamilton brothers pull out all the stops, to not only keep Madison safe, but to clear their brother's name.
It's always sad to come to the end of a series, especially one you have watched grow from the very first one, one you have watched the author's skill grow with every book along the way. Brad's story is a fitting end to an amazing journey.
Brad's secret has been hinted at along the way, but never fully revealed until now, and I did like being kept waiting on that front. That Brad didn't actually do anything wrong, he just thought he had, shows the depth of character Brad has. His brothers never doubted him, and neither does Madison when she gets the full story.
Brad and Madison's chemistry is hot off the charts, but I liked that it takes them time to finally give in to their feelings, and when Brad falls, he falls HARD and he falls FAST. Madison is half in love with Brad from the very beginning, I think!
I loved that ALL the brothers pop in and out at some part of this story, and Blake and Elizabeth too. We get to catch up with all the babies born, and those on the way, and I really don't think it will be long before Brad and Madison have their own news to share.
I loved the planning of them all being together at Thanksgiving, and the table cloth idea was a fabulous idea I may well steal! Maybe at some point in the future, we can drop in on their Thanksgiving, just to catch up with everyone. I often wonder whether, when their series is finished whether characters actually shut up on their authors, or just lurk in the background waiting to pounce!
It did not feel as long a read as the others, but page length is pretty consistent through the brothers books, but dad's book is only short.
A fitting end, I think. I can't wait to see what Ms Kell comes up with next.
Thank you, for writing these books, I will miss them all.
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
ClareR (5561 KP) rated Two Women in Rome in Books
Jun 15, 2021
Two Women in Rome is a truly captivating story set in two time periods. In the present day, Lottie is an archivist working in Rome who comes across a painting once owned by an English woman called Nina who died in the late 1970’s. The painting appears to be valuable, painted in the fifteenth century.
Lottie also finds Nina’s journal in her personal effects, and the more of it she reads, the more she wants to find out about her life.
I loved the details about Rome in both timelines - I’ve visited Rome and loved it. The strong female characters were also a big plus point for me. Lottie is a head archivist, she really knows what she’s doing and is confident in her abilities. Nina is also an assertive woman - she is often in new situations that many would find themselves floundering in (Ok, that sounds really vague, but I don’t want to give anything away!)
This is a book about secrets: about keeping them, and what happens when they are revealed - both good and bad. This isn’t a book that goes fast and hard in its revelations. Quite opposite in fact, and probably why I liked it so much. I love a well told story, and I really felt that I knew the women in this because of that feeling of not being rushed through the story.
There’s a fair amount of Italian politics in this, some of which I had never known about, so that was another plus point. I hadn’t realised that Italy had had quite such a tumultuous political life for so long after World War Two. The novel has a great mix of themes, actually: secrets, history, politics, life in Rome, betrayal, guilt. I think I’m becoming a bit of an Elizabeth Buchan fan because I really enjoyed her last book The Museum of Broken Promises, as well. Both books are set in Europe, with the aftereffects of great political upheavals, ostensibly going back to World War Two. This book is well worth reading - I’d definitely recommend it.
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole and NetGalley for my copy of this book.
Lottie also finds Nina’s journal in her personal effects, and the more of it she reads, the more she wants to find out about her life.
I loved the details about Rome in both timelines - I’ve visited Rome and loved it. The strong female characters were also a big plus point for me. Lottie is a head archivist, she really knows what she’s doing and is confident in her abilities. Nina is also an assertive woman - she is often in new situations that many would find themselves floundering in (Ok, that sounds really vague, but I don’t want to give anything away!)
This is a book about secrets: about keeping them, and what happens when they are revealed - both good and bad. This isn’t a book that goes fast and hard in its revelations. Quite opposite in fact, and probably why I liked it so much. I love a well told story, and I really felt that I knew the women in this because of that feeling of not being rushed through the story.
There’s a fair amount of Italian politics in this, some of which I had never known about, so that was another plus point. I hadn’t realised that Italy had had quite such a tumultuous political life for so long after World War Two. The novel has a great mix of themes, actually: secrets, history, politics, life in Rome, betrayal, guilt. I think I’m becoming a bit of an Elizabeth Buchan fan because I really enjoyed her last book The Museum of Broken Promises, as well. Both books are set in Europe, with the aftereffects of great political upheavals, ostensibly going back to World War Two. This book is well worth reading - I’d definitely recommend it.
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole and NetGalley for my copy of this book.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Not even two Will Smiths can save it.
"Gemini Man (2019)" is a blend of action, drama, crime and sci-fi, and tells the story of Henry Brogan (portrayed by Will Smith), the world's most renowned assassin who is looking to retire from the government agency he's been working for.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Stewart's Performance Elevates a Mediocre Film
Pablo Loraine’s SPENCER is not a subtle film, it shows the confinement and suffocation of Lady Diana Spencer under the watchful eye of the British monarchy and is not shy about who the bad guys are.
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Incredibly dull and predictable
Antebellum is a 2020 thriller film from debut writer directors Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, the trailer for which implied it was a mind bending, time travelling horror story set during the times of slavery in America. However Antebellum never manages to live up to what it promised, instead turning out to be a rather dull and predictable affair.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Aug 9, 2020
Hanks and Stephen Graham. (1 more)
Tense cat and mouse hunting
Grey but exciting.
Here's a great movie trivia question for you.... which 2020 movies link Claire Duburcq and Elizabeth Shue, and why? The answer is at the end of this review!
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
Felipe (17 KP) rated Chaplin (1992) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
A modern tragedy meant to be one of the greats
Contains spoilers, click to show
Richard Attenborough delivers another masterpiece of cinematic biography and is a worthy successor to Ghandi. The structure of the film is told as a flashback while Charlie Chaplin is writing his autobiography with a fictional editor that does not exist. We see for the first time the flaws of who Chaplin is as a person and we see him confront his past in a way that is painful not unlike how it is painful when we relive moments in our lives we would rather choose to forget. However, the success of the film is how it strips the illusion of who Chaplin was and presents to us a person who is tragically flawed but who is unbale to appreciate his own genius. An example is when Chaplin's version of the invention of the Tramp is seen for what he imagined it to be an idealized moment in which the character is calling to him except for what it really was, We see the reality of the movies during this time; a hectic spur of the moment improvised invention drawn from real life. Yet we see Chaplin as the midwife to this new artform the movies and we see him develop it for what it is, the highest expression of art that stirs our imagination and makes us believe anything is possible. We even cry during Chaplin's moments of personal tragedy; the insanity and loss of his mother; repeated failed marriages; the death of his best friend, Douglas Fairbanks and finally his tragic and painful exile from America the only place he knew as home all taking place in the backdrop of the invention and evolution of cinema. However, I feel that in the end Chaplin is the one that comes out triumphant. In the last moments of the movie we see how Chaplin despairs that he feels that he has been forgotten and made irrelevant by the changing times; he feels that the weight of not only his age but the weight of the world on his shoulders and yet we see that everything he believes himself to be is completely wrong when Hollywood bestows on him the greatest honor which is not only the special Oscar but also a standing ovation. His final triumph is to be made a knight by Queen Elizabeth II, we are truly made to see that although flawed he is triumphant in the end.