Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Dec 17, 2020
John Garrity (Gerard Butler) is a man trying to put his life in order. Despite being a successful structural engineer; he has recently moved back home with his wife Allison (Morena Baccarin), and their son Nathan (Roger Dale Floyd).
John and Allison are attempting to rebuild their marriage and despite some awkwardness at first they are moving ahead. In the new film “Greenland” life is about to become far more complicated for the Garrity family in the form of a comet that is set to pass very close to earth.
The authorities have told the public there is no cause for concern but John notices a large group of military aircraft in the skies shortly before he receives an automated call from Homeland Security telling him to come to an evacuation location with his wife and son.
Not sure what to make of the message; things become abundantly clear when a “harmless fragment” strikes and destroys a city on live television.
With panic setting in the Garrity family head to the evacuation site only to face complications which leave them separated and facing many dangers and obstacles as they attempt to reunite and get to safety before the big chunk hits in two days.
The film is very engaging and what really stood out for me was how the film relied on the cast versus an array of special effects and action sequences which are so common for films in the disaster genre.
Despite the circumstances the characters were very relatable and the tension of the pending impact helped shape their actions instead of being a countdown to an elaborate array of FX sequences showing cities being devastated. While there is footage of this sort; it is generally confined to news reports versus being the focal points.
Butler was very strong in a departure from his usual action oriented parts as a father trying to make things right in a world that is falling apart around him. It was also nice to hear him using his natural accent for a change as well.
While some may wonder about the timing of releasing a disaster film at the end of 2020 and during the Holiday Season the film is so engaging that it did not matter to me in the slightest.
“Greenland” is a film that came in under the radar in terms of hype and expectation but has delivered an enjoyable and memorable viewing experience that is not to be missed.
John and Allison are attempting to rebuild their marriage and despite some awkwardness at first they are moving ahead. In the new film “Greenland” life is about to become far more complicated for the Garrity family in the form of a comet that is set to pass very close to earth.
The authorities have told the public there is no cause for concern but John notices a large group of military aircraft in the skies shortly before he receives an automated call from Homeland Security telling him to come to an evacuation location with his wife and son.
Not sure what to make of the message; things become abundantly clear when a “harmless fragment” strikes and destroys a city on live television.
With panic setting in the Garrity family head to the evacuation site only to face complications which leave them separated and facing many dangers and obstacles as they attempt to reunite and get to safety before the big chunk hits in two days.
The film is very engaging and what really stood out for me was how the film relied on the cast versus an array of special effects and action sequences which are so common for films in the disaster genre.
Despite the circumstances the characters were very relatable and the tension of the pending impact helped shape their actions instead of being a countdown to an elaborate array of FX sequences showing cities being devastated. While there is footage of this sort; it is generally confined to news reports versus being the focal points.
Butler was very strong in a departure from his usual action oriented parts as a father trying to make things right in a world that is falling apart around him. It was also nice to hear him using his natural accent for a change as well.
While some may wonder about the timing of releasing a disaster film at the end of 2020 and during the Holiday Season the film is so engaging that it did not matter to me in the slightest.
“Greenland” is a film that came in under the radar in terms of hype and expectation but has delivered an enjoyable and memorable viewing experience that is not to be missed.
mi Flight Board Pro
Travel and Entertainment
App
Turn your iPhone or iPad into an animated old style retro flip-flap Arrivals and Departures board...
Darren (1599 KP) rated 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 40 Days and 40 Nights starts as we meet Matt (Hartnett) who has been struggling with his break up from Nicole (Shaw), this has led Matt to a string of one night stands that lead to him having visions of a black hole. Matt’s brother John (Tree) is in training to become a priest where Matt learns about lent and vows to give up all sexual activity for 40 days and 40 nights.
When his roommate Ryan (Costanzo) decides to spread the news about the vow a betting pool opens up and to make Matt’s life more difficult when he finally meets the perfect woman Erica (Sossamon). Matt has to learn to balance his vow while starting a new relationship where sex is out of the question.
40 Days and 40 Nights is a film I did enjoy watching even if I can see big flaws in the story, this mostly comes from the idea that it is written that every guy is obsessed with sex and couldn’t possible go 40 days without having it. The problems comes where everyone is against Matt rather than having even just one person supporting him through his self-improvement idea. I do however feel the story works for what it is trying to be even if it comes off unbelievable throughout.
Actor Review
Josh Hartnett: Matt Sullivan is a struggling man who can’t get over his ex-girlfriend Nicole. Running through a string of one night stands he wakes from these with a vision of the world coming to an end. Coming up with the idea to give up sexual activity for lent his life becomes a game for people around the world who has bet on when it will end and the perfect woman come into his life his whole life becomes difficult. Josh shows with this performance he can handle comedy.
Shannyn Sossamon: Erica has been struggling to find the right guy and her job doesn’t help. She meets Matt and see him as a different guy to the normal ones she meets but doesn’t fully understand the vow. Shannyn is good in this role being a strong leading lady.
Paulo Costanzo: Ryan is Matt’s roommate who is always looking to go out and meet girls for sex. He keeps watch over Matt after telling everyone about the vow. Paulo is solid as this supporting friend even if this generic.
Adam Tree: John Sullivan is the priest in training brother of Matt’s who doesn’t believe he can achieve his vow because he knows how difficult it is to go through. Adam is solid but in the end is just another supporting character.
Support Cast: 40 Days and 40 Nights has a supporting cast which includes plenty of different characters that are trying to make Matt break his vow with not a single person actually supporting him.
Director Review: Michael Lehmann – Michael gives us a fun comedy even if it is very one sided with the reactions and mind set people are meant to be in.
Comedy: 40 Days and 40 Nights has moments of comedy which mostly surround people trying to make Matt break the vow.
Romance: 40 Days and 40 Nights does try to tackle relationships by trying to make it more about how sex isn’t the most important part of the relationship.
Settings: 40 Days and 40 Nights keeps the settings around San Francisco which is always a great visual location for a film.
Suggestion: 40 Days and 40 Nights is one to try it does have good moments of good comedy but it also has a story which seems to be very much sex is all people think about. (Try It)
Best Part: Hartnett works for comedy.
Worst Part: Not everyone is sex obsessed.
Romantic Moment: No contact date.
Believability: The way things go I would say no.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $17 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
Tagline: It’s Easy to Say But Harder To Do!
Overall: Simple comedy that does work well for what it is trying to achieve.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/07/25/40-days-and-40-nights-2002/
When his roommate Ryan (Costanzo) decides to spread the news about the vow a betting pool opens up and to make Matt’s life more difficult when he finally meets the perfect woman Erica (Sossamon). Matt has to learn to balance his vow while starting a new relationship where sex is out of the question.
40 Days and 40 Nights is a film I did enjoy watching even if I can see big flaws in the story, this mostly comes from the idea that it is written that every guy is obsessed with sex and couldn’t possible go 40 days without having it. The problems comes where everyone is against Matt rather than having even just one person supporting him through his self-improvement idea. I do however feel the story works for what it is trying to be even if it comes off unbelievable throughout.
Actor Review
Josh Hartnett: Matt Sullivan is a struggling man who can’t get over his ex-girlfriend Nicole. Running through a string of one night stands he wakes from these with a vision of the world coming to an end. Coming up with the idea to give up sexual activity for lent his life becomes a game for people around the world who has bet on when it will end and the perfect woman come into his life his whole life becomes difficult. Josh shows with this performance he can handle comedy.
Shannyn Sossamon: Erica has been struggling to find the right guy and her job doesn’t help. She meets Matt and see him as a different guy to the normal ones she meets but doesn’t fully understand the vow. Shannyn is good in this role being a strong leading lady.
Paulo Costanzo: Ryan is Matt’s roommate who is always looking to go out and meet girls for sex. He keeps watch over Matt after telling everyone about the vow. Paulo is solid as this supporting friend even if this generic.
Adam Tree: John Sullivan is the priest in training brother of Matt’s who doesn’t believe he can achieve his vow because he knows how difficult it is to go through. Adam is solid but in the end is just another supporting character.
Support Cast: 40 Days and 40 Nights has a supporting cast which includes plenty of different characters that are trying to make Matt break his vow with not a single person actually supporting him.
Director Review: Michael Lehmann – Michael gives us a fun comedy even if it is very one sided with the reactions and mind set people are meant to be in.
Comedy: 40 Days and 40 Nights has moments of comedy which mostly surround people trying to make Matt break the vow.
Romance: 40 Days and 40 Nights does try to tackle relationships by trying to make it more about how sex isn’t the most important part of the relationship.
Settings: 40 Days and 40 Nights keeps the settings around San Francisco which is always a great visual location for a film.
Suggestion: 40 Days and 40 Nights is one to try it does have good moments of good comedy but it also has a story which seems to be very much sex is all people think about. (Try It)
Best Part: Hartnett works for comedy.
Worst Part: Not everyone is sex obsessed.
Romantic Moment: No contact date.
Believability: The way things go I would say no.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $17 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
Tagline: It’s Easy to Say But Harder To Do!
Overall: Simple comedy that does work well for what it is trying to achieve.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/07/25/40-days-and-40-nights-2002/
Mail Plus – Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Mail Plus for iPad and iPhone is the digital edition of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday with...
Ross (3284 KP) rated Reign of Madness in Books
Nov 30, 2018 (Updated Nov 30, 2018)
Good but needlessly long and slow
Following on from Free the Darkness, which ended somewhat abruptly ("we're going on an adventure, the end"), Reign of Madness sees Rezkin "Marty Stu" travelling to the King's Tournament with a group of fellow travellers. As before, his motives are somewhat hidden or confused but largely he is looking for answers to what his purpose was and why he had to kill all of his boyhood mentors.
In almost every chapter, something happens that makes it abundantly clear that Rezkin is of royal descent, and yet nobody picks up on the massive clanging hints that abound. Even right to the last page, his companions remain so stupid as to miss the obvious that it gets annoying. This might be Kade suggesting something of human nature / not wanting to accept the facts, but it comes across more that he hasn't hidden the clues as well as he thinks he has and only plain exposition could possibly lay them bare.
Part of this I think stems from the omniscient narrator again, the reader gets far too much information on everyone's thoughts and events so it is hard to put yourself in one character's position and their behaviours just seem so much more flawed than they would if we had only single person snapshot PoVs.
And Rezkin's character seems to be inconsistent - one minute he is meant to be a master of disguise and can insert himself into any situation, the next he doesn't understand any emotions; one chapter he nearly attacks a woman for approaching him quickly, the next he allows a grown man to hit him in anger as they grieve their recent bereavement.
As with book 1, the story is good, the action sequences well written and the underlying long-term plot is strong. However, some of the writing of it is clumsy (chapters of nothing but expository dialogue), the characters one-dimensional (especially the female characters) and a lot of the world (especially the magic such as it is) seems to be made up on the spot. And the whole thing just takes so long to get through. I think if you are dedicated and determined to plough through 20% plus a day this will be fine, if you pick it up now and then and get through less than 10% you will find yourself grinding to a halt through the first half of this book, where nothing happens except a donkey being healed and A LOT of dialogue about not a lot (which essentially just replaces things that should really have been explained in book 1).
I will carry on with the series but these long rambling tomes are stretching my tolerance (and the value for money from my Kindle Unlimited trial!).
In almost every chapter, something happens that makes it abundantly clear that Rezkin is of royal descent, and yet nobody picks up on the massive clanging hints that abound. Even right to the last page, his companions remain so stupid as to miss the obvious that it gets annoying. This might be Kade suggesting something of human nature / not wanting to accept the facts, but it comes across more that he hasn't hidden the clues as well as he thinks he has and only plain exposition could possibly lay them bare.
Part of this I think stems from the omniscient narrator again, the reader gets far too much information on everyone's thoughts and events so it is hard to put yourself in one character's position and their behaviours just seem so much more flawed than they would if we had only single person snapshot PoVs.
And Rezkin's character seems to be inconsistent - one minute he is meant to be a master of disguise and can insert himself into any situation, the next he doesn't understand any emotions; one chapter he nearly attacks a woman for approaching him quickly, the next he allows a grown man to hit him in anger as they grieve their recent bereavement.
As with book 1, the story is good, the action sequences well written and the underlying long-term plot is strong. However, some of the writing of it is clumsy (chapters of nothing but expository dialogue), the characters one-dimensional (especially the female characters) and a lot of the world (especially the magic such as it is) seems to be made up on the spot. And the whole thing just takes so long to get through. I think if you are dedicated and determined to plough through 20% plus a day this will be fine, if you pick it up now and then and get through less than 10% you will find yourself grinding to a halt through the first half of this book, where nothing happens except a donkey being healed and A LOT of dialogue about not a lot (which essentially just replaces things that should really have been explained in book 1).
I will carry on with the series but these long rambling tomes are stretching my tolerance (and the value for money from my Kindle Unlimited trial!).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gay Chat & Dating - Partner
Dating and Social Networking
1.0
Rate It
App
Partner is a cool gay dating app for real communication only. Our superiority over other dating...
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Once and Future Witches in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Thank you to Netgalley for luring me in with this recommendation and the gorgeous cover art. Thank you to Alix E Harrow for providing such an amazing story for this ARC review. All the opinions expressed below are my own.
"Witches and women's rights. Suffrage and spells. They're both...a kind of power...the kind we're not allowed to have."
I'm not often drawn to books involving witches to be honest. I love an annual viewing of Hocus Pocus (who doesn't?!) but that is usually where the affinity ends.
If anything can change my nonchalance, I suspect it may be Alix E. Harrow. This is the first piece of work I have read by the Hugo award winning writer and I don’t need any tarot cards to predict it will not be the last. From the outset of The Once and Future Witches I was hooked: the worldbuilding alone is amazing; you can immediately picture the mills, avenues, squares and slums of New Salem as well as the mysterious tower that pulls our three main characters together.
The three Eastwood sisters themselves are another work of art. Juniper, Agnes and Bella are fierce, formidable women in wildly different ways. They are also flawed, stubborn and quite frankly, inspirational: by linking women’s rights and witchcraft this fantasy novel suddenly becomes more real and relatable to the modern female reader, despite being set in 1893. We empathise, sympathise and rage right alongside the Eastwood sisters on their quest for equality in a male-controlled world.
However, not even witches can act alone and the Eastwood sisters have an amazing cast of supporting characters surrounding them. Impressively, not a single one of these characters can be accused of being two-dimensional: the character development that Harrow has invested into this novel is incredible and must have taken so much work! From the Suffragette’s secretary to the skin-crawling villain to the women and men fighting (and witching) side by side; every single character is substantial and memorable. The sarcasm within Juniper for example is hilarious and even the traditional figures of the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone refuse to conform to stereotypes: I LOVED it!
The format of this novel is very clever and practically forbids you from becoming too comfortable by peppering the main story with “witch-tales”. These complement rather than distract from the storyline and also provide small changes that make you smile – such as the tales of the Sisters Grimm.
Do not be fooled though: the use of witch-tales does not prevent The Once and Future Witches from being an incredibly modern piece of writing. Topics covered include sexuality, gender identity, feminism, race as well as smashing the patriarchy: all interspersed with magic, betrayal and a hell of a lot of emotion.
I would however argue that some topics are slightly too mature for the novel to be considered YA, the description of torture and suggestions of sexual abuse probably push this book firmly into general/adult fantasy fiction novels.
The Once and Future Witches is a future bestseller in my opinion. This unique, powerful novel provides characters that you can’t help but empathise with; slow-burning, intense relationships; the trials and tribulations that come with sisterhood and plot twists at every turn.
This book will swallow you heart and soul, make you laugh, make you cry and leave you bereft at the end.
It is a must read!
"Witches and women's rights. Suffrage and spells. They're both...a kind of power...the kind we're not allowed to have."
I'm not often drawn to books involving witches to be honest. I love an annual viewing of Hocus Pocus (who doesn't?!) but that is usually where the affinity ends.
If anything can change my nonchalance, I suspect it may be Alix E. Harrow. This is the first piece of work I have read by the Hugo award winning writer and I don’t need any tarot cards to predict it will not be the last. From the outset of The Once and Future Witches I was hooked: the worldbuilding alone is amazing; you can immediately picture the mills, avenues, squares and slums of New Salem as well as the mysterious tower that pulls our three main characters together.
The three Eastwood sisters themselves are another work of art. Juniper, Agnes and Bella are fierce, formidable women in wildly different ways. They are also flawed, stubborn and quite frankly, inspirational: by linking women’s rights and witchcraft this fantasy novel suddenly becomes more real and relatable to the modern female reader, despite being set in 1893. We empathise, sympathise and rage right alongside the Eastwood sisters on their quest for equality in a male-controlled world.
However, not even witches can act alone and the Eastwood sisters have an amazing cast of supporting characters surrounding them. Impressively, not a single one of these characters can be accused of being two-dimensional: the character development that Harrow has invested into this novel is incredible and must have taken so much work! From the Suffragette’s secretary to the skin-crawling villain to the women and men fighting (and witching) side by side; every single character is substantial and memorable. The sarcasm within Juniper for example is hilarious and even the traditional figures of the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone refuse to conform to stereotypes: I LOVED it!
The format of this novel is very clever and practically forbids you from becoming too comfortable by peppering the main story with “witch-tales”. These complement rather than distract from the storyline and also provide small changes that make you smile – such as the tales of the Sisters Grimm.
Do not be fooled though: the use of witch-tales does not prevent The Once and Future Witches from being an incredibly modern piece of writing. Topics covered include sexuality, gender identity, feminism, race as well as smashing the patriarchy: all interspersed with magic, betrayal and a hell of a lot of emotion.
I would however argue that some topics are slightly too mature for the novel to be considered YA, the description of torture and suggestions of sexual abuse probably push this book firmly into general/adult fantasy fiction novels.
The Once and Future Witches is a future bestseller in my opinion. This unique, powerful novel provides characters that you can’t help but empathise with; slow-burning, intense relationships; the trials and tribulations that come with sisterhood and plot twists at every turn.
This book will swallow you heart and soul, make you laugh, make you cry and leave you bereft at the end.
It is a must read!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The DUFF (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Disappointingly Generic
The school-set comedy genre has been done to death over the last two decades. From body swap comedies like 17 Again that hang on the pulling power of their stars, to films that now have a cult following like 10 Things I Hate About You, each of them has little to offer once the end credits roll.
With the brilliant Mean Girls being one of the only exceptions to the trend, the latest film to tackle the genre is The DUFF, but is Ari Sandel’s directorial debut worthy of a recommendation?
The DUFF follows daily life at a typical American high-school with typical US teens separated into categories depending on their social standing.
Enter Bianca Piper, played by the brilliant Mae Whitman, a vastly intelligent girl who is unaware of her place in the rankings as the DUFF – Designated Ugly Fat Friend – that is until her hunky next door neighbour Wesley (Robbie Amell) informs her of that fact.
What ensues is a selection of mildly amusing scenes interspersed with some touching social commentary about what it means to be normal in an ever-changing world as Bianca tries to come to terms with her place in the school hierarchy.
Despite the obvious focus on looks and beauty, the film does have a deeper message of self-worth and it’s a shame this is rarely touched upon outside of the finale.
Perhaps The DUFF’s strongest suit is in its unique filming style. The use of technology and social media helps distinguish it from its rivals and what it lacks in story is made up for with clever uses of animation and an engaging soundtrack.
Just when you think the film has decided to settle in a rut and remain there for the duration, it throws you off course with a clever cut-scene or use of technology and there are two moments in particular that had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t that funny. The story is predictable and the will-they-won’t-they romantic subplot is massively clichéd and dull because the characters, apart from Bianca, simply don’t register – there is no reason to care for them.
Mae Whitman is a force to be reckoned with as Bianca and is by far the most intriguing member of a disappointingly bland cast. Elsewhere, Ken Jeong (Community, The Hangover) and Allison Janney (Hairspray) pop up as a concerned teacher and Bianca’s mother, but they are both wasted in ultimately thankless roles.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for films like The DUFF. The school-set genre has fizzled out in recent years and hasn’t got its mojo back despite numerous efforts from movies much less accomplished than this one.
Mae Whitman and the use of Family Guy-esque cut-scenes are the main plus points here, but despite its best intentions, it’s hard to give it too much of a recommendation and is probably best reserved for a late-night DVD viewing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/12/disappointingly-generic-the-duff-review/
With the brilliant Mean Girls being one of the only exceptions to the trend, the latest film to tackle the genre is The DUFF, but is Ari Sandel’s directorial debut worthy of a recommendation?
The DUFF follows daily life at a typical American high-school with typical US teens separated into categories depending on their social standing.
Enter Bianca Piper, played by the brilliant Mae Whitman, a vastly intelligent girl who is unaware of her place in the rankings as the DUFF – Designated Ugly Fat Friend – that is until her hunky next door neighbour Wesley (Robbie Amell) informs her of that fact.
What ensues is a selection of mildly amusing scenes interspersed with some touching social commentary about what it means to be normal in an ever-changing world as Bianca tries to come to terms with her place in the school hierarchy.
Despite the obvious focus on looks and beauty, the film does have a deeper message of self-worth and it’s a shame this is rarely touched upon outside of the finale.
Perhaps The DUFF’s strongest suit is in its unique filming style. The use of technology and social media helps distinguish it from its rivals and what it lacks in story is made up for with clever uses of animation and an engaging soundtrack.
Just when you think the film has decided to settle in a rut and remain there for the duration, it throws you off course with a clever cut-scene or use of technology and there are two moments in particular that had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t that funny. The story is predictable and the will-they-won’t-they romantic subplot is massively clichéd and dull because the characters, apart from Bianca, simply don’t register – there is no reason to care for them.
Mae Whitman is a force to be reckoned with as Bianca and is by far the most intriguing member of a disappointingly bland cast. Elsewhere, Ken Jeong (Community, The Hangover) and Allison Janney (Hairspray) pop up as a concerned teacher and Bianca’s mother, but they are both wasted in ultimately thankless roles.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for films like The DUFF. The school-set genre has fizzled out in recent years and hasn’t got its mojo back despite numerous efforts from movies much less accomplished than this one.
Mae Whitman and the use of Family Guy-esque cut-scenes are the main plus points here, but despite its best intentions, it’s hard to give it too much of a recommendation and is probably best reserved for a late-night DVD viewing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/12/disappointingly-generic-the-duff-review/
HR
Human Resource Management: Strategic and International Perspectives
Jonathan Crawshaw, Pawan S. Budhwar and Ann Davis
Book
A comprehensive introduction to HRM for students who are new to the field, but who will be seeking...