Search
Search results
Big Carp Magazine
Sports and Magazines & Newspapers
App
For over 20 years Big Carp has been the serious carp anglers favourite read. Written and read by the...
Russ Bray Darts Scorer
Sports and Entertainment
App
// HAVE THE PDC WORLD FINAL REFEREE RUSS BRAY CALLING YOUR MATCHES!! // ***** 5 star award in Apps...
Solomon Kane
Tabletop Game
Solomon Kane is a dour English Puritan and redresser of wrongs. He roams the world, fighting against...
Boardgames NovelsintoGames 2019Games
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated How to Stop Time in Books
Jun 30, 2017
Favourite book of 2017 so far
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
All the world’s a stage/And all the men and women merely players/They have their exits and their entrances/And one man in his time plays many parts …
How to Stop Time is British author Matt Haig’s latest novel, and a very interesting one it is, too. In the present day, Tom Hazard is a 40-something-looking man who has landed himself with the position of history teacher at a comprehensive school in Tower Hamlets. Despite not having any formal training, Tom is the perfect candidate for the position because, despite his looks, he is 439 years old. But, that is a secret that no one must ever discover.
The book jumps back and forth between the current time period and flashbacks to various events during Tom’s extensive past. Born in 1581, Tom has experienced a great part of British history and major events around the world. Constantly changing his name and identification, he moved around the world, switching locations whenever people began to get suspicious of his never-aging body.
After a couple of centuries, Tom met a man with the same condition as himself, who revealed that there were many people in the same predicament. Promising to be able to help keep him safe, the stranger coerces Tom into a union called the Albatross Society. There are many rules and conditions to follow, however, the most important advice is to never fall in love. Unfortunately, Tom has already done this.
In London 1623, Tom met the love of his life, Rose, who he eventually married and with whom he had a daughter. Although Tom does age, it is at the rate of one year every 15; therefore he eventually had to leave his family in order to keep them safe. However, his daughter Marion has inherited his condition and Tom spends his subsequent years trying to find her. With promises to help him on his quest, Tom reluctantly joins the Albatross Society, despite their questionable ways.
All Tom wants is to be able to lead a normal life, yet the narrative reveals how impossible this has been, both in the past and now in the present. From Elizabethan England to Elizabeth II’s reign, Tom lives through several monarchs, wars, colloquial changes, industrialisation, sanitisation of comestibles, and the introduction of digital technology. Without the added pressure of keeping his true identity disguised, it is very interesting to experience historical events through the eyes of the protagonist.
The ending, unfortunately, does not quite satisfy the growing excitement and interest of the rest of the novel. Important things happen too quickly, making it confusing to understand the main storyline. The majority of the story appears to only be setting the scene for the final couple of chapters, but as this is so fascinating, there cannot be too much complaint.
Presuming that Haig has done his research and that the historical periods are factually correct, How to Stop Time is as educational as it is entertaining. History lovers will enjoy reading about famous people such as Shakespeare and Charlie Chaplin, as well as getting an insight into the daily lives of past societies. Most importantly, Tom is a captivating character, who, despite having lived for four centuries, is still as socially awkward as the best of us.
How to Stop Time contains a fantastic concept about the progression of time and aging, but its most poignant point is the emphasis on finding and being you. Change is an inevitable certainty, as witnessed by Tom whose current world looks nothing like his memories. Although people must adapt to the on-going changes, living how you want is more important than adjusting to fit in with everyone else. In essence, do not be afraid to let the world see your true self.
All the world’s a stage/And all the men and women merely players/They have their exits and their entrances/And one man in his time plays many parts …
How to Stop Time is British author Matt Haig’s latest novel, and a very interesting one it is, too. In the present day, Tom Hazard is a 40-something-looking man who has landed himself with the position of history teacher at a comprehensive school in Tower Hamlets. Despite not having any formal training, Tom is the perfect candidate for the position because, despite his looks, he is 439 years old. But, that is a secret that no one must ever discover.
The book jumps back and forth between the current time period and flashbacks to various events during Tom’s extensive past. Born in 1581, Tom has experienced a great part of British history and major events around the world. Constantly changing his name and identification, he moved around the world, switching locations whenever people began to get suspicious of his never-aging body.
After a couple of centuries, Tom met a man with the same condition as himself, who revealed that there were many people in the same predicament. Promising to be able to help keep him safe, the stranger coerces Tom into a union called the Albatross Society. There are many rules and conditions to follow, however, the most important advice is to never fall in love. Unfortunately, Tom has already done this.
In London 1623, Tom met the love of his life, Rose, who he eventually married and with whom he had a daughter. Although Tom does age, it is at the rate of one year every 15; therefore he eventually had to leave his family in order to keep them safe. However, his daughter Marion has inherited his condition and Tom spends his subsequent years trying to find her. With promises to help him on his quest, Tom reluctantly joins the Albatross Society, despite their questionable ways.
All Tom wants is to be able to lead a normal life, yet the narrative reveals how impossible this has been, both in the past and now in the present. From Elizabethan England to Elizabeth II’s reign, Tom lives through several monarchs, wars, colloquial changes, industrialisation, sanitisation of comestibles, and the introduction of digital technology. Without the added pressure of keeping his true identity disguised, it is very interesting to experience historical events through the eyes of the protagonist.
The ending, unfortunately, does not quite satisfy the growing excitement and interest of the rest of the novel. Important things happen too quickly, making it confusing to understand the main storyline. The majority of the story appears to only be setting the scene for the final couple of chapters, but as this is so fascinating, there cannot be too much complaint.
Presuming that Haig has done his research and that the historical periods are factually correct, How to Stop Time is as educational as it is entertaining. History lovers will enjoy reading about famous people such as Shakespeare and Charlie Chaplin, as well as getting an insight into the daily lives of past societies. Most importantly, Tom is a captivating character, who, despite having lived for four centuries, is still as socially awkward as the best of us.
How to Stop Time contains a fantastic concept about the progression of time and aging, but its most poignant point is the emphasis on finding and being you. Change is an inevitable certainty, as witnessed by Tom whose current world looks nothing like his memories. Although people must adapt to the on-going changes, living how you want is more important than adjusting to fit in with everyone else. In essence, do not be afraid to let the world see your true self.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Her Every Fear in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Read my review here: https://bookbumzuky.wordpress.com/
NOW AVAILABLE!
<b><i>Face it. Accept it. Float with it. Let time pass.</i></b>
Kate, our anxiety riddled main character, has just flat swapped with her American cousin in order to boost her confidence and try to escape her haunted past for a little while, but as soon as she arrives at her cousin's luxurious apartment, things begin to go sour. Her new next door neighbour has been murdered, and her secretive American cousin seems to the main suspect.
<b>This <i>could</i> have been <i>so</i> good.</b> Swansons last hit novel, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1427280826">The Kind Worth Killing</a> (aw look at my baby review) was so goddamn exciting and thrilling but this was completely missing whatever spark the other had. A co-reviewer (Maxi/Slothreads) commented that this book was uninspired and I couldnt have put that any better myself, hence why Im quoting it. This had potential to work and be great but I feel like Swanson was pushed for time by his editors on this and spewed out whatever came to mind first. I know I sound like a total arse for saying that but Im just really disappointed in this novel! <b>Warning: some spoilers ahead.</b>
Lets start off by talking about our uninteresting characters. Kate suffers from anxiety disorder, made a lot worse by a terrifying incident she had with her ex boyfriend, so she decides to travel across the pond and into her cousin's apartment. While anxiety is something Im all too familiar with, I dont actually have any sympathy for Kate, as were supposed to. If she was really as damaged as she is made out to be, I find it very hard to believe she would move to America for 6 months all by herself, make friends and chat with everyone she comes across and sleep with a guy, Alan, whos admitted to be a creepy window watcher after 3 days of knowing him. Next comes ol cousin Corbin whos a cliche jock. Swanson makes him out to be the guilt ridden, caring man but after the revelation of his bad deeds in the past, how are we supposed to like him or feel sorry for him? It makes all the empathetic talk from him seem so creepy. Our only interesting character is, of course, the psycho. A bit of an over-the-top, cliche psycho, but at least worth reading about.
My <b>main</b> issue with this novel is the repetition of scenes. Our narrator chops and changes several times in the novel, so were often presented with a retelling of what weve already been told by another narrator. Id say that at least 25% of this book is a repeat of a part weve already read, so it gets very tedious, very quickly. Another issue with this novel is the lack of plot twist, I mean, there is a plot twist, but its not that exciting and it happens early on in the novel, so the rest of the book plays out exactly how you would expect it to. Can I also quickly just complain about the unnecessary focus on the fact that Alan is Jewish? It made me uncomfortable. And that Swanson should have done some more research into England because we dont have £100 notes.
This novel had great potential, but in the end, it was a let down. The ending was terribly mediocre and then the remaining chapters were a waste of time to read, they really could have been removed.
Thanks to Netgalley and Faber & Faber Ltd for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
NOW AVAILABLE!
<b><i>Face it. Accept it. Float with it. Let time pass.</i></b>
Kate, our anxiety riddled main character, has just flat swapped with her American cousin in order to boost her confidence and try to escape her haunted past for a little while, but as soon as she arrives at her cousin's luxurious apartment, things begin to go sour. Her new next door neighbour has been murdered, and her secretive American cousin seems to the main suspect.
<b>This <i>could</i> have been <i>so</i> good.</b> Swansons last hit novel, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1427280826">The Kind Worth Killing</a> (aw look at my baby review) was so goddamn exciting and thrilling but this was completely missing whatever spark the other had. A co-reviewer (Maxi/Slothreads) commented that this book was uninspired and I couldnt have put that any better myself, hence why Im quoting it. This had potential to work and be great but I feel like Swanson was pushed for time by his editors on this and spewed out whatever came to mind first. I know I sound like a total arse for saying that but Im just really disappointed in this novel! <b>Warning: some spoilers ahead.</b>
Lets start off by talking about our uninteresting characters. Kate suffers from anxiety disorder, made a lot worse by a terrifying incident she had with her ex boyfriend, so she decides to travel across the pond and into her cousin's apartment. While anxiety is something Im all too familiar with, I dont actually have any sympathy for Kate, as were supposed to. If she was really as damaged as she is made out to be, I find it very hard to believe she would move to America for 6 months all by herself, make friends and chat with everyone she comes across and sleep with a guy, Alan, whos admitted to be a creepy window watcher after 3 days of knowing him. Next comes ol cousin Corbin whos a cliche jock. Swanson makes him out to be the guilt ridden, caring man but after the revelation of his bad deeds in the past, how are we supposed to like him or feel sorry for him? It makes all the empathetic talk from him seem so creepy. Our only interesting character is, of course, the psycho. A bit of an over-the-top, cliche psycho, but at least worth reading about.
My <b>main</b> issue with this novel is the repetition of scenes. Our narrator chops and changes several times in the novel, so were often presented with a retelling of what weve already been told by another narrator. Id say that at least 25% of this book is a repeat of a part weve already read, so it gets very tedious, very quickly. Another issue with this novel is the lack of plot twist, I mean, there is a plot twist, but its not that exciting and it happens early on in the novel, so the rest of the book plays out exactly how you would expect it to. Can I also quickly just complain about the unnecessary focus on the fact that Alan is Jewish? It made me uncomfortable. And that Swanson should have done some more research into England because we dont have £100 notes.
This novel had great potential, but in the end, it was a let down. The ending was terribly mediocre and then the remaining chapters were a waste of time to read, they really could have been removed.
Thanks to Netgalley and Faber & Faber Ltd for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
Nick doonan (0 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Apr 4, 2018
A movie you only watch once.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay so i was sceptical about watching this movie and have put off watching it for quite some time but, as it is Christopher Nolan and the IMDb ratings seem to show above average on it, i thought i'd give it a chance seen as i loved all his previous movies.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated The Durrells of Corfu in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Truth Without Disenchantment
I think the first thing to note is that there is probably no point in reading this book if you haven't at the very least watched one of the T.V. series. Indeed a lot of it will probably go right over your head if you are not well-versed in Durrell's tales of his childhood in Corfu.
I am, and have been since I first picked My Family And Other Animals when I was eleven - which is longer ago now than I would really like to think about! Age aside, my point is this: I have read and loved these books many times, and for several decades. Durrell was my first 'grown up' read as a child and the Corfu trilogy has long been ranked in my 'comfort reads' - those books you turn to again and again when you just want something familiar and easy. It was with some concern, then, that I picked up the ARC of Haag's book when it landed in our staff room. I didn't want my illusions destroyed, and whilst it goes largely without saying that there was going to be some massaging of the truth in Durrell's autobiographical stories I wasn't sure that I was ready for The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But.
Haag, it turns out, is also a little bit in love with the Durrells. As such I can think of few better people to write the bald truth about this family without destroying the charm and good humour of Gerald Durrell's books for those of us who want to hold on to the myth. This delicate unravelling begins on the very first page as Haag presents the reader with the brutal and tragic truth behind the Corfu sojourn - the sudden death of Durrell Snr at the age of just forty-four. In My Family Gerald Durrell manages to skim over this uncomfortable truth with such success that he imparts the information that his mother is a widow without ever giving the reader space to think or question more deeply into the effect on the family beyond their enforced to move back to cold, rainy England - a place from which they then escaped to Corfu, so legend has it, for no more pressing reason than to avoid colds.
And so Haag's biography continues, with a gentle but unrelenting quality, to pull scales from eyes. Using tracts from Durrell's books he often does little more than a simple but effective compare and contrast with reality: introducing characters who were completely written out of the Durrell legend, yet were significant members of the Durrell collective; opening up the more Bohemian aspects of their life, and the way they were perceived by other immigrant British at the time.
Haag also exposes the more complex relationships within the family. Lawrence, who is presented through young Gerry's eyes as probably his greatest critic it transpires is his greatest champion: directing and ensuring Gerry's education whilst keeping him free of the structure and strictures of school; the somewhat sadder story of belligerent and boisterous Leslie - so much larger-than-life in the Corfu books, who later seems to become estranged from the family; and perhaps most surprising of all - Margo, who had a life that rivals either of her famous brothers for interest and adventure, at least in her younger years.
All of these uncomfortable exposes Haag achieves, and I feel far better informed about the family now, than I ever have yet never once have I felt that I will not be able to return and pick up Gerry Durrell's books and read them with the same joy and pleasure that I have done for the last four decades.
I am, and have been since I first picked My Family And Other Animals when I was eleven - which is longer ago now than I would really like to think about! Age aside, my point is this: I have read and loved these books many times, and for several decades. Durrell was my first 'grown up' read as a child and the Corfu trilogy has long been ranked in my 'comfort reads' - those books you turn to again and again when you just want something familiar and easy. It was with some concern, then, that I picked up the ARC of Haag's book when it landed in our staff room. I didn't want my illusions destroyed, and whilst it goes largely without saying that there was going to be some massaging of the truth in Durrell's autobiographical stories I wasn't sure that I was ready for The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But.
Haag, it turns out, is also a little bit in love with the Durrells. As such I can think of few better people to write the bald truth about this family without destroying the charm and good humour of Gerald Durrell's books for those of us who want to hold on to the myth. This delicate unravelling begins on the very first page as Haag presents the reader with the brutal and tragic truth behind the Corfu sojourn - the sudden death of Durrell Snr at the age of just forty-four. In My Family Gerald Durrell manages to skim over this uncomfortable truth with such success that he imparts the information that his mother is a widow without ever giving the reader space to think or question more deeply into the effect on the family beyond their enforced to move back to cold, rainy England - a place from which they then escaped to Corfu, so legend has it, for no more pressing reason than to avoid colds.
And so Haag's biography continues, with a gentle but unrelenting quality, to pull scales from eyes. Using tracts from Durrell's books he often does little more than a simple but effective compare and contrast with reality: introducing characters who were completely written out of the Durrell legend, yet were significant members of the Durrell collective; opening up the more Bohemian aspects of their life, and the way they were perceived by other immigrant British at the time.
Haag also exposes the more complex relationships within the family. Lawrence, who is presented through young Gerry's eyes as probably his greatest critic it transpires is his greatest champion: directing and ensuring Gerry's education whilst keeping him free of the structure and strictures of school; the somewhat sadder story of belligerent and boisterous Leslie - so much larger-than-life in the Corfu books, who later seems to become estranged from the family; and perhaps most surprising of all - Margo, who had a life that rivals either of her famous brothers for interest and adventure, at least in her younger years.
All of these uncomfortable exposes Haag achieves, and I feel far better informed about the family now, than I ever have yet never once have I felt that I will not be able to return and pick up Gerry Durrell's books and read them with the same joy and pleasure that I have done for the last four decades.
Story: 71 starts as we see Gary Hook (O’Connell) going through his training with his regiment before they get deployed to Belfast to deal with the riot situation. In Ireland the regiment receive their instructions and onto the Catholic side of the war. When the riots get out of hand Gary finds himself on the wrong side of the barrier alone and unarmed in the Irish territory.
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/