Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Delirium in Books
Jun 7, 2018
Review from my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I really, really, really wanted to like this book. In fact, I wanted to love it, but it just didn't happen. I just couldn't get into it at all no matter how hard I tried. It's gotten some rave reviews so maybe there's just something wrong with me.
Lena is a seventeen year old girl who doesn't challenge anything about her government. She's too scared of the consequences. In a few months, on her 18th birthday, she'll be cured of the disease, the disease of love. She's looking forward to the day she can be cured of love. In fact, she's counting down the days. However, everything changes when she meets the gorgeous Alex, an invalid (another name for someone who is uncured after their 18th birthday). Now she doesn't want to be cured as Alex has opened her eyes to this disease called love. Lena is wondering if love was ever really a disease at all. Lena is putting herself at risk to be with Alex. Will she have her happy ever after or will she be cured?
The world building isn't bad. The story takes place in Portland. The author does a great job of trying to make the reader believe in a world where love is banned. It is quite believable.
I don't think the cover suits the book at all. Lauren Oliver has a habit of just putting faces on the covers of her books. However, I think this is the easy way out. Putting a photo of a face on a book doesn't really tell us anything about the book. I wish Ms. Oliver would consider changing her covers to make them relevant to the actual story.
The title, however, definitely suits the book. Love is seen as a type of delirium. It's banned, and the government wants everyone to believe how love will make you delirious. It's a great title for the book.
I found the pacing to be too slow for my liking. Don't get me wrong, it's written quite nicely, but it's just too slow. I had to force myself to read the book most of the time. I just couldn't get into it, and I found myself not really caring about the characters. There is one good bit, and it's only about two or three chapters towards the middle of the book.
The dialogue is easy to understand and is written beautifully. There are a few swear words however. (Lena drops the f-bomb a couple of times and the s word is used a couple of times as well). The good thing is this book isn't littered with swear words which is nice.
I just couldn't relate to any of the characters. Lena drove me crazy!! She was too much of a goody goody and too scared throughout the book. It especially annoyed me when she couldn't tell the difference if she was crying or sweating. I've never had a problem telling the difference!! And Alex, nothing really annoyed me about him, but I just couldn't feel him if you know what I mean. I basically found that I couldn't give a toss about what happened to Lena and Alex. I did like Hana as she was more of a free spirit and willing to take risks. I liked how full of life she was. She was the only character I kind of cared about, but she wasn't a main character, nor was she mentioned as much as I would've liked her to be.
Throughout most of the book I just felt really bored with the book which made me kind of sad because I really wanted to enjoy this book after reading some reviews about how great this book was. It was a challenge for me to get through the book, save for two or three chapters. This book just didn't really do anything for me, and I won't be reading the rest of the series as I don't really care what happens.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. It's just too boring and is lacking something.
Overall, I'd rate Delirium by Lauren Oliver a 2.5 out of a 5.
I really, really, really wanted to like this book. In fact, I wanted to love it, but it just didn't happen. I just couldn't get into it at all no matter how hard I tried. It's gotten some rave reviews so maybe there's just something wrong with me.
Lena is a seventeen year old girl who doesn't challenge anything about her government. She's too scared of the consequences. In a few months, on her 18th birthday, she'll be cured of the disease, the disease of love. She's looking forward to the day she can be cured of love. In fact, she's counting down the days. However, everything changes when she meets the gorgeous Alex, an invalid (another name for someone who is uncured after their 18th birthday). Now she doesn't want to be cured as Alex has opened her eyes to this disease called love. Lena is wondering if love was ever really a disease at all. Lena is putting herself at risk to be with Alex. Will she have her happy ever after or will she be cured?
The world building isn't bad. The story takes place in Portland. The author does a great job of trying to make the reader believe in a world where love is banned. It is quite believable.
I don't think the cover suits the book at all. Lauren Oliver has a habit of just putting faces on the covers of her books. However, I think this is the easy way out. Putting a photo of a face on a book doesn't really tell us anything about the book. I wish Ms. Oliver would consider changing her covers to make them relevant to the actual story.
The title, however, definitely suits the book. Love is seen as a type of delirium. It's banned, and the government wants everyone to believe how love will make you delirious. It's a great title for the book.
I found the pacing to be too slow for my liking. Don't get me wrong, it's written quite nicely, but it's just too slow. I had to force myself to read the book most of the time. I just couldn't get into it, and I found myself not really caring about the characters. There is one good bit, and it's only about two or three chapters towards the middle of the book.
The dialogue is easy to understand and is written beautifully. There are a few swear words however. (Lena drops the f-bomb a couple of times and the s word is used a couple of times as well). The good thing is this book isn't littered with swear words which is nice.
I just couldn't relate to any of the characters. Lena drove me crazy!! She was too much of a goody goody and too scared throughout the book. It especially annoyed me when she couldn't tell the difference if she was crying or sweating. I've never had a problem telling the difference!! And Alex, nothing really annoyed me about him, but I just couldn't feel him if you know what I mean. I basically found that I couldn't give a toss about what happened to Lena and Alex. I did like Hana as she was more of a free spirit and willing to take risks. I liked how full of life she was. She was the only character I kind of cared about, but she wasn't a main character, nor was she mentioned as much as I would've liked her to be.
Throughout most of the book I just felt really bored with the book which made me kind of sad because I really wanted to enjoy this book after reading some reviews about how great this book was. It was a challenge for me to get through the book, save for two or three chapters. This book just didn't really do anything for me, and I won't be reading the rest of the series as I don't really care what happens.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. It's just too boring and is lacking something.
Overall, I'd rate Delirium by Lauren Oliver a 2.5 out of a 5.
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Butterfly Garden in Books
Jul 2, 2018
Usually I don’t choice book by its cover. But in this case, when I saw the book’s cover I was almost sure that I wanna read this book. The cover with its dark tones and eye catching red details is so stunning.* Then there was a brainstorming review that made me 100% sure I am gonna read this book.
The story is told my Maya. 18 years old girl managed to escape from a sex-addicted serial killer. He ‘catches’ the girls and make them live in the Garden. From first sight this Garden is a piece of Heaven- all this green plants, cliffs with waterfalls and brooks, but actually its a Devil’s place and the Devil is The Gardener. Rich man, craving for attention sociopath, he keeps his Garden full with beautiful young girls with breathtaking tattoos on their back. The tattoos represent butterfly wings and that’s why these girls are called ‘Butterflies’. They are going to share the butterfly beauty but their short life as well.
The story goes in two directions- the one, where two FBI detectives are trying to solve the mystery of The Garden and meanwhile leading Maya’s interrogation and the second one brings us back the house throughout Maya’s memories.
Maya was the girl who helps the new ‘catch’ the get use with the new situation they came with. Also she tries to keep all girls united. Except from the Gardener, there is his eldest son who also is aware of what’s going on in his dad’s secret garden. There is Lorraine as well. She is an ex-Butterfly who takes care for the girls and plays the role of their doctor. She is free of going in and out of the house, whenever she wants to, but also she is the perfect example of Stockholm syndrome so she didn’t even think about exposing her beloved one.
The Gardener is pretty conflicting character, though. Although he keeps girls in captive, for the outside world he is intelligent man, and big appreciator of art. He takes care for the girls, acts gently, with respect, but he expect from them, they always to be ready to greet him in their beds and to satisfy his sexual desires. From other side is his biggest son. He, in difference with his father, is evil and rude. He is one sadistic son of a bitch, trying to take all the benefits from the girls, as he can. The thing that makes him horny and turns him up is to break girls limbs, to hurt and even to kill them while he is f*cking them.
The wind of change came with Des - the Gardener lil son. He is good and loving, just like his father, except the fact that he doesn’t ripe girls and doesn’t like what his father and brother are doing at all. But after all he is son of his father and prefers to keep their family name nice and clean, instead of helping the girls.
From the very first page, the book held my attention and this didn’t change throughout the hole book till the last page. A horrifying story narrated extremely well. The adrenaline of the action kept me awake in the night, made me turn over the pages till I reached the last one. Maya is the perfect narrator- a rebel with butting tongue, she brings so much life to the book and her story at all. The biggest fault of the book is its ending. Seriously who can finish an amazing book like this in this stupid, discouraged way? It’s like the author just ran out of ideas (or deadlines were knocking on the door) and rushed the end. In the last pages there is a person, showed up with all the answers I need, but I didn’t found their answers because the book came to its end. I was so frustrated that I wanted to throw the book away and never ever look at it once again.
Despite the miserable ending, I recommend the books as something that everyone, who likes psycho triller, has to read.
* I’m taking about Bulgarian edition of the book ?
The story is told my Maya. 18 years old girl managed to escape from a sex-addicted serial killer. He ‘catches’ the girls and make them live in the Garden. From first sight this Garden is a piece of Heaven- all this green plants, cliffs with waterfalls and brooks, but actually its a Devil’s place and the Devil is The Gardener. Rich man, craving for attention sociopath, he keeps his Garden full with beautiful young girls with breathtaking tattoos on their back. The tattoos represent butterfly wings and that’s why these girls are called ‘Butterflies’. They are going to share the butterfly beauty but their short life as well.
The story goes in two directions- the one, where two FBI detectives are trying to solve the mystery of The Garden and meanwhile leading Maya’s interrogation and the second one brings us back the house throughout Maya’s memories.
Maya was the girl who helps the new ‘catch’ the get use with the new situation they came with. Also she tries to keep all girls united. Except from the Gardener, there is his eldest son who also is aware of what’s going on in his dad’s secret garden. There is Lorraine as well. She is an ex-Butterfly who takes care for the girls and plays the role of their doctor. She is free of going in and out of the house, whenever she wants to, but also she is the perfect example of Stockholm syndrome so she didn’t even think about exposing her beloved one.
The Gardener is pretty conflicting character, though. Although he keeps girls in captive, for the outside world he is intelligent man, and big appreciator of art. He takes care for the girls, acts gently, with respect, but he expect from them, they always to be ready to greet him in their beds and to satisfy his sexual desires. From other side is his biggest son. He, in difference with his father, is evil and rude. He is one sadistic son of a bitch, trying to take all the benefits from the girls, as he can. The thing that makes him horny and turns him up is to break girls limbs, to hurt and even to kill them while he is f*cking them.
The wind of change came with Des - the Gardener lil son. He is good and loving, just like his father, except the fact that he doesn’t ripe girls and doesn’t like what his father and brother are doing at all. But after all he is son of his father and prefers to keep their family name nice and clean, instead of helping the girls.
From the very first page, the book held my attention and this didn’t change throughout the hole book till the last page. A horrifying story narrated extremely well. The adrenaline of the action kept me awake in the night, made me turn over the pages till I reached the last one. Maya is the perfect narrator- a rebel with butting tongue, she brings so much life to the book and her story at all. The biggest fault of the book is its ending. Seriously who can finish an amazing book like this in this stupid, discouraged way? It’s like the author just ran out of ideas (or deadlines were knocking on the door) and rushed the end. In the last pages there is a person, showed up with all the answers I need, but I didn’t found their answers because the book came to its end. I was so frustrated that I wanted to throw the book away and never ever look at it once again.
Despite the miserable ending, I recommend the books as something that everyone, who likes psycho triller, has to read.
* I’m taking about Bulgarian edition of the book ?
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Antichrist (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A married couple suffers one of the greatest losses any couple could endure, but the wife seems to be taking it harder than the husband. She's enrolled in a hospital until he, a therapist, thinks the doctors aren't doing a good enough job with her and that she'd do better at home under his care. She blames herself for their suffering while he thinks he can help her. They decide to depart to a cabin in the woods in hopes of relaxing a bit and to undergo his therapy. Things start out a bit rough, but it seems like progress is being made. That is until nature steps in, who has other plans for them, and the situation begins to quickly deteriorate.
This is quite possibly the most disturbing film I've ever sat through. Inside made me feel incredibly uneasy and Jack Ketchum's The Girl Next Door made me feel uncomfortable and a little nauseous, but Antichrist seems to take it to another level (I haven't seen Irreversible, however, which I hear Antichrist being compared to quite a bit). While Antichrist doesn't show absolutely everything and it's usually rather brief when it comes to showing disturbing material, it shows enough to make your stomach drop.
Throughout the film, everything that takes place just doesn't feel right. From the very first scene, the viewer knows that the film probably isn't going to be an easy watch. The character's actions and the setting being rather isolated leads one to believe a series of unfortunate events will eventually be taking place. Antichrist doesn't swerve the viewer into thinking it's going to be something else. The foundation is set right from the get-go. The film slowly builds towards the last thirty minutes or so and you're kind of left thinking, "I've got a bad feeling about this," up until that point. However, once things start taking a turn for the worst, your reaction will be something along the lines of, "Oh no, what is she going to do with...WHAT THE F---?! Now she's taking a...what is that?! OH S---!"
Everything else leading to the last half of the film is done incredibly well. The cinematography is rather incredible, especially while they're in Eden. Everything is so lush and green while certain shots alone say more than the characters in the film ever could. The score is haunting and successfully establishes putting its viewers on edge. The song used at the beginning and end of the film is beautiful yet heartbreaking at the same time. The entire film is spent with this married couple and their performances are top notch. It's just those last thirty to forty five minutes take such an abrupt turn. The film hints at things going downhill, but everything hits the fan so suddenly. Nothing can really prepare you for how unrelenting and horrifying the finale is. The events that unfold in this film will haunt you and stick with you for an incredibly long time.
The less you know about Antichrist, the more surprising that first viewing will be. That's the main reason this review is so vague. Don't read up on it and don't watch anything other than the trailer before seeing the film. Just be warned, the film shows enough for a gut-wrenching reaction. It's no In the Realm of the Senses, but it's definitely along those lines. Antichrist's strongest asset is the atmosphere it builds throughout the film. The air just seems to be constantly thick with the fact that something terrible is going to happen at any moment. While the film is disturbing, shocking, and was able to make me feel things most horror films aren't capable of, I wouldn't say the film was enjoyable. It's not to say the film isn't done well because it is in almost every aspect, but I could hardly see myself popping the movie in to entertain me on a Saturday night. The film takes its toll on you and I don't think it's a film I'd really enjoy sitting through again.
This is quite possibly the most disturbing film I've ever sat through. Inside made me feel incredibly uneasy and Jack Ketchum's The Girl Next Door made me feel uncomfortable and a little nauseous, but Antichrist seems to take it to another level (I haven't seen Irreversible, however, which I hear Antichrist being compared to quite a bit). While Antichrist doesn't show absolutely everything and it's usually rather brief when it comes to showing disturbing material, it shows enough to make your stomach drop.
Throughout the film, everything that takes place just doesn't feel right. From the very first scene, the viewer knows that the film probably isn't going to be an easy watch. The character's actions and the setting being rather isolated leads one to believe a series of unfortunate events will eventually be taking place. Antichrist doesn't swerve the viewer into thinking it's going to be something else. The foundation is set right from the get-go. The film slowly builds towards the last thirty minutes or so and you're kind of left thinking, "I've got a bad feeling about this," up until that point. However, once things start taking a turn for the worst, your reaction will be something along the lines of, "Oh no, what is she going to do with...WHAT THE F---?! Now she's taking a...what is that?! OH S---!"
Everything else leading to the last half of the film is done incredibly well. The cinematography is rather incredible, especially while they're in Eden. Everything is so lush and green while certain shots alone say more than the characters in the film ever could. The score is haunting and successfully establishes putting its viewers on edge. The song used at the beginning and end of the film is beautiful yet heartbreaking at the same time. The entire film is spent with this married couple and their performances are top notch. It's just those last thirty to forty five minutes take such an abrupt turn. The film hints at things going downhill, but everything hits the fan so suddenly. Nothing can really prepare you for how unrelenting and horrifying the finale is. The events that unfold in this film will haunt you and stick with you for an incredibly long time.
The less you know about Antichrist, the more surprising that first viewing will be. That's the main reason this review is so vague. Don't read up on it and don't watch anything other than the trailer before seeing the film. Just be warned, the film shows enough for a gut-wrenching reaction. It's no In the Realm of the Senses, but it's definitely along those lines. Antichrist's strongest asset is the atmosphere it builds throughout the film. The air just seems to be constantly thick with the fact that something terrible is going to happen at any moment. While the film is disturbing, shocking, and was able to make me feel things most horror films aren't capable of, I wouldn't say the film was enjoyable. It's not to say the film isn't done well because it is in almost every aspect, but I could hardly see myself popping the movie in to entertain me on a Saturday night. The film takes its toll on you and I don't think it's a film I'd really enjoy sitting through again.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I saw one trailer for this and at that point I instantly assumed that it wouldn't show at my local Cineworld, but it did, with a surprising amount of showings. The gentleman and I who attended this particular screening really did not look like your typical black metal fans, but then it's always the quiet ones...
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated My Week with Marilyn (2011) in Movies
Dec 30, 2019
Strong performance by Williams in a terrific film
According to my Letterboxd profile, I view (on average) 4.5 films/week. Only 1 or 2 of them in a week are at the theater. The rest, I stream (or pop in the DVD). I spare you (for the most part) my review of mediocre or just plain bad films that I see (case in point the recent A CHRISTMAS CAROL on FX starring Guy Pearce - only watch it if you've ever wanted to see Marley drop the F-bomb multiple times). But...every once in a while I catch up with a gem that compels me to write a review to inform you folks of a wonderful film you might have missed (or have forgotten about).
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
I checked up on the BBFC about language allowed in the different rated films. A 15 may have frequent strong language, "the strongest terms may be acceptable if justified by the context", it also says that "aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Azan Time Pro
Productivity and Utilities
App
*****Special Discount for limited time from 4.99$ to 1.99$ Get it now before the price growing...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…