Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Treasure Planet (2002) in Movies
Jun 6, 2017
A fun take on the classic Treasure Island tale (1 more)
A very gripping story with a lot of heart
(Personal opinion) I'm not a huge fan of 'space' pirates (1 more)
Predictable even without knowing the story
A fun film for the family
This is probably only the 3rd time I've seen this film in my life. I'm currently reading the classic novel 'Treasure Island' written by Robert Louis Stevenson, and I wanted to watch something similar to it, without watching the actual adaptations of the same name as I do not wish to spoil the events of the few chapters I have not yet read. I knew that Treasure Planet was different in many ways and so I knew it wouldn't be completely true to the story.
So, I would describe Treasure Planet to someone by saying "Think of space pirates, all of whom are different weird looking species of aliens, and a cyborg with one young human looking character who's a stereotypical rebellious teen, even including a history of trespassing with his hover board (referencing a skateboarding rebellious teen).
The film has a lot of connections to the source material with it's story, such as names, and roles within the story, but it has a lot of it's own to offer. As a Disney film you expect certain aspects with the story, and you know what's going to happen moments before it happens, which might take away some of the entertainment factor for some, but if you don't mind it, then it's a decent film. Adapting the classic tale and setting it in space, gives the writers a lot of freedom to make the characters look and act how they want. There's a spider like character, a cat humanoid, a dog humanoid, frog humanoids, a character who appears to be made of stone, and John Silver himself, known in the story for having one leg, actually has robotic replacements for his left side. He has a robotic leg, arm and eye, which add to his somewhat villainous appearance and attitude.
The voice cast for the film is good and each character certainly seems to sound how they look, and when there are the heart filled moments as there are in every Disney film, it really hits you and makes you sympathize with the characters.
Overall this would be a fun film to watch with the kids, and if you grew up with Disney, as I'm sure most people have, but you haven't seen this, I recommend at least giving it a chance. If you don't like it, it's understandable, but it is a fun take on Treasure Island, and the pirate theme as a whole.
So, I would describe Treasure Planet to someone by saying "Think of space pirates, all of whom are different weird looking species of aliens, and a cyborg with one young human looking character who's a stereotypical rebellious teen, even including a history of trespassing with his hover board (referencing a skateboarding rebellious teen).
The film has a lot of connections to the source material with it's story, such as names, and roles within the story, but it has a lot of it's own to offer. As a Disney film you expect certain aspects with the story, and you know what's going to happen moments before it happens, which might take away some of the entertainment factor for some, but if you don't mind it, then it's a decent film. Adapting the classic tale and setting it in space, gives the writers a lot of freedom to make the characters look and act how they want. There's a spider like character, a cat humanoid, a dog humanoid, frog humanoids, a character who appears to be made of stone, and John Silver himself, known in the story for having one leg, actually has robotic replacements for his left side. He has a robotic leg, arm and eye, which add to his somewhat villainous appearance and attitude.
The voice cast for the film is good and each character certainly seems to sound how they look, and when there are the heart filled moments as there are in every Disney film, it really hits you and makes you sympathize with the characters.
Overall this would be a fun film to watch with the kids, and if you grew up with Disney, as I'm sure most people have, but you haven't seen this, I recommend at least giving it a chance. If you don't like it, it's understandable, but it is a fun take on Treasure Island, and the pirate theme as a whole.
Debbiereadsbook (1454 KP) rated Skin and Bone (Digging Up Bones #2) in Books
Mar 7, 2019
fabulous second book!
I was lucky enough to win an ARC of this book.
This is book TWO in the Digging Up Bones series, and you really SHOULD read book one, Bone To Pick, before you read this one. You'll need it to get a feel for Javi and Cloister before this book.
I'm not gonna write a blurby bit, cos if I'm honest (and I'm ALL about the honest!) I got a bit lost with the Janet Morrow storyline, and once I decided I would just read those bits, and not pay much attention, I liked this a lot better. Also being honest, this is highly likely to be ME (since I'm a bit of a mess at the moment) rather than this book, because I really did LOVE catching up with Javi, Cloister and Bournville!
They are such damaged, broken men, and it really is a pleasure watching them fall. Because they HAVE fallen, they just can't admit, not even to themselves, how much the other man means to him. Javi nearly does, but he shuts that thought down right quick! Cloister does admit he LIKES Javi, but I read far more into that, than was actually said.
It's the little things that tell a lot, you know? Like how Javi looks after Clositer when he gets hit by the truck. Like how Cloister tells Javi not to get shot. The random thoughts that make you giggle how they come out of nowhere, about they think about the other, about how they feel. They DO admit to feeling, at least to themselves, sorta, kinds, and it's those out of nowhere things I LOVE about these two! There is no way to predict where the comments and thoughts will come from. Love being kept on my toes.
We get more of Cloister's history, about his family and some of my questions (that I had after book one) are answered here. We get why Javi was sent to town, to work, after what happened in Phoenix.
I hope there is at least one more book, I really do! These guys NEED to be happy, like REALLY happy with each other and at the moment, while . . . . . content . . . .they aren't really happy. And you know, we don't know what's going to happen to Javi when his replacement comes to twon, a woman who does NOT have happy thoughts about Javi! And there is something going on in Javi's head about higher ups in the food chain, so I need to know about that!
So, thank you, Ms Moore, for my copy, I'm sorry I got a bit lost, but I'm still giving it the rating it deserves.
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book TWO in the Digging Up Bones series, and you really SHOULD read book one, Bone To Pick, before you read this one. You'll need it to get a feel for Javi and Cloister before this book.
I'm not gonna write a blurby bit, cos if I'm honest (and I'm ALL about the honest!) I got a bit lost with the Janet Morrow storyline, and once I decided I would just read those bits, and not pay much attention, I liked this a lot better. Also being honest, this is highly likely to be ME (since I'm a bit of a mess at the moment) rather than this book, because I really did LOVE catching up with Javi, Cloister and Bournville!
They are such damaged, broken men, and it really is a pleasure watching them fall. Because they HAVE fallen, they just can't admit, not even to themselves, how much the other man means to him. Javi nearly does, but he shuts that thought down right quick! Cloister does admit he LIKES Javi, but I read far more into that, than was actually said.
It's the little things that tell a lot, you know? Like how Javi looks after Clositer when he gets hit by the truck. Like how Cloister tells Javi not to get shot. The random thoughts that make you giggle how they come out of nowhere, about they think about the other, about how they feel. They DO admit to feeling, at least to themselves, sorta, kinds, and it's those out of nowhere things I LOVE about these two! There is no way to predict where the comments and thoughts will come from. Love being kept on my toes.
We get more of Cloister's history, about his family and some of my questions (that I had after book one) are answered here. We get why Javi was sent to town, to work, after what happened in Phoenix.
I hope there is at least one more book, I really do! These guys NEED to be happy, like REALLY happy with each other and at the moment, while . . . . . content . . . .they aren't really happy. And you know, we don't know what's going to happen to Javi when his replacement comes to twon, a woman who does NOT have happy thoughts about Javi! And there is something going on in Javi's head about higher ups in the food chain, so I need to know about that!
So, thank you, Ms Moore, for my copy, I'm sorry I got a bit lost, but I'm still giving it the rating it deserves.
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Goodbye, Vitamin in Books
Jan 21, 2018
Funny (2 more)
Sweet moments
Well-written
Lovely, touching read
After a rough breakup with her fiance, Ruth reluctantly accepts her mother's request to return home and help care for her father, Howard, who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Once home, Ruth realizes that Howard--an extremely well-respected professor of history--has his good days and bad days, while her mother has stopped cooking (blaming the aluminum in cookware for Howard's illness). Floundering at first, Ruth eventually steps up, cooking for her family, helping her father, and generally trying to regain her footing. But even she cannot ignore that her father's condition is worsening.
This is an interesting novel, told in short bits and pieces, as if Ruth is talking to her father and describing their days. It covers one year after she comes to stay and comes across almost as if a diary, with a very conversational tone (interspersed with her random thoughts). It's oddly compelling and often humorous, despite the serious subject matter. Occasionally, we get a few snippets from a journal Ruth's father kept during her childhood, chronicling funny things she did or said as a child.
As for Ruth, there's a lightness to many of her stories and observations, but also a sadness: she's watching her beloved, intelligent father fall prey to Alzheimer's; there is a darkness as well, as she grapples with finding out imperfections about her parents' marriage and life. The character list is limited, but all we need, including Ruth's younger brother, Linus; Howard's former teaching assistant, Theo; and a few of Ruth's friends. Ruth comes across as a very real person: she doesn't have it all together, but that's okay. A few pieces of the overall story path are predictable, but do not detract from your overall enjoyment of the book.
The few portions we get from Howard's journal regarding young Ruth are amazing: they humanize him and definitely capture parenthood perfectly. They also so well illustrate how Ruth and Howard are slowly switching roles from child to parent, as Ruth almost begins to have similar observations about her own failing father. The way Khong depicts the sadness and poignancy in these moments is just beautiful and brilliant.
In the end, this is a different kind of book: you have to have the patience for it. It doesn't necessarily tell a story in a full arc, but it's sweet and moving. I very much liked Ruth and the novel (even I did wonder how both Ruth and eventually Linus could afford to stay with their parents, while jobless, but oh well.). Lovely and touching - certainly worth picking up.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review
This is an interesting novel, told in short bits and pieces, as if Ruth is talking to her father and describing their days. It covers one year after she comes to stay and comes across almost as if a diary, with a very conversational tone (interspersed with her random thoughts). It's oddly compelling and often humorous, despite the serious subject matter. Occasionally, we get a few snippets from a journal Ruth's father kept during her childhood, chronicling funny things she did or said as a child.
As for Ruth, there's a lightness to many of her stories and observations, but also a sadness: she's watching her beloved, intelligent father fall prey to Alzheimer's; there is a darkness as well, as she grapples with finding out imperfections about her parents' marriage and life. The character list is limited, but all we need, including Ruth's younger brother, Linus; Howard's former teaching assistant, Theo; and a few of Ruth's friends. Ruth comes across as a very real person: she doesn't have it all together, but that's okay. A few pieces of the overall story path are predictable, but do not detract from your overall enjoyment of the book.
The few portions we get from Howard's journal regarding young Ruth are amazing: they humanize him and definitely capture parenthood perfectly. They also so well illustrate how Ruth and Howard are slowly switching roles from child to parent, as Ruth almost begins to have similar observations about her own failing father. The way Khong depicts the sadness and poignancy in these moments is just beautiful and brilliant.
In the end, this is a different kind of book: you have to have the patience for it. It doesn't necessarily tell a story in a full arc, but it's sweet and moving. I very much liked Ruth and the novel (even I did wonder how both Ruth and eventually Linus could afford to stay with their parents, while jobless, but oh well.). Lovely and touching - certainly worth picking up.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review
Kyera (8 KP) rated A Wild and Unremarkable Thing in Books
Feb 1, 2018
A Wild and Unremarkable Thing had a very interesting premise that blended fantasy aspects like dragons, with Greek mythology and medieval lore. I love history and mythology, so this book immediately called to me. Unfortunately, it didn't entirely live up to my expectations for it although I did still enjoy my read. I believe that the biggest reason why it stumbled for me is how short the book is. At 238 pages, the author did not have enough time to adequately flesh out the plotline and characters leaving the story feeling rushed and the supporting characters unexplored.
The book is written through alternating points of view, which was a nice way to delve deeper into the character's psyche despite the short text. The main character is Cody, a girl who was born Cayda but has been forced by her father to train and lie her entire life with the hopes that she will slay a Fire Scale. She accepts the pain and commitment because the most important thing is to be able to provide for her family, especially her sisters. I wish that we had been able to get to know the sisters more so that we could form that bond with them and the book would have had more emotional weight.
The other two main characters were Penn and Wolfe. Penn was certainly the most interesting aspect of the story and I enjoyed seeing things from his perspective. Wolfe, on the other hand, was not a character that I related to or enjoyed reading. It was nice however to see things from his perspective as it offered a completely different life experience to view the hunt through.
The book also fell prey to the trope of insta-love, which I believe was also the fault of the story being so short. There was not adequate time to explore the relationship or infatuation between two characters before it seemed as if they were suddenly in love. It almost felt as if chapters of the story were missing because the development of bonds between characters or the plot would jump forward without sufficient explanation. The ending of the book felt incredibly rushed and I wish that it had been given the longer, more detailed conclusion that it deserved.
As a casual reader, I found that I enjoyed the overall story and the weaving of Greek mythology into the plot. Unfortunately, critically there were a number of different aspects that detracted from my enjoyment of the book or drew me out of the story. Despite that, I felt that the author's writing was well done and hope that she can bring more detail to her books in the future.
The book is written through alternating points of view, which was a nice way to delve deeper into the character's psyche despite the short text. The main character is Cody, a girl who was born Cayda but has been forced by her father to train and lie her entire life with the hopes that she will slay a Fire Scale. She accepts the pain and commitment because the most important thing is to be able to provide for her family, especially her sisters. I wish that we had been able to get to know the sisters more so that we could form that bond with them and the book would have had more emotional weight.
The other two main characters were Penn and Wolfe. Penn was certainly the most interesting aspect of the story and I enjoyed seeing things from his perspective. Wolfe, on the other hand, was not a character that I related to or enjoyed reading. It was nice however to see things from his perspective as it offered a completely different life experience to view the hunt through.
The book also fell prey to the trope of insta-love, which I believe was also the fault of the story being so short. There was not adequate time to explore the relationship or infatuation between two characters before it seemed as if they were suddenly in love. It almost felt as if chapters of the story were missing because the development of bonds between characters or the plot would jump forward without sufficient explanation. The ending of the book felt incredibly rushed and I wish that it had been given the longer, more detailed conclusion that it deserved.
As a casual reader, I found that I enjoyed the overall story and the weaving of Greek mythology into the plot. Unfortunately, critically there were a number of different aspects that detracted from my enjoyment of the book or drew me out of the story. Despite that, I felt that the author's writing was well done and hope that she can bring more detail to her books in the future.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us in Books
Jul 23, 2019
This book has one of the best forewords I've ever seen. Bornstein explains that since 1994, when the book was first published, language has changed a lot, and terms that were used regularly then, like transsexual, are highly offensive now. So she has heavily rewritten the book to change the language, but she goes on to say that language is an always-changing thing, and in five or six years this edition, too, might be offensive in the language used. Then she apologizes for that. My favorite lines are one of the last paragraphs of the foreword:
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 6 Underground (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
It’s a Michael Bay film. It’s going to have so many car crashes, explosions, stunts and more of the same. Seriously. It’s Michael Bay…AND Ryan Reynolds. With the script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who both have worked on Zombieland, Deadpool 1 & 2. Just to clarify, this IS an action movie. It surprises me that it was released at this time of year. I would have thought the typical release would head off the summer blockbuster season. However, Netflix has been sending out an eclectic group of movies to premiere in theaters prior to its streaming release.
The premise that we are set up for: super rich billionaire, Number One (Ryan Reynolds) has curated a team with members that each have a specific set of skills. The small team of specialists are all ghosts in the real world. The work that they do requires the anonymity of nonexistence. Each member of the six -person team have been chosen by Number One. Number Two (Melanie Laurent) is a former CIA Operative, Number Three (Manuel Garcia Rulfo) the very talented assassin, Number Four (Adria Arjona) is the Doctor. She is the one who can remove a bullet while the car is dodging through the traffic at breakneck speed. Number five (Ben Hardy, last seen in Bohemian Rhapsody as Roger Taylor) who is the parkour king. Rounding out the team is Number Six (Dave Franco) the Driver.
To say some parts of the film was subdued would have some people raise their collective eyebrows. However, the characters (Numbers Two to Six), have taken on the witty quips that we, as an audience have long associated with Ryan Reynolds. The writers have dispersed the wit and sarcasm to the other team members. This also helps to provide the comradery and establish the “family” concept that bonds the disparate backgrounds of each member. We are privy to a little bit of information of each team member, but I would have liked to see a little bit more history of each to fill in the personal motivation.
I enjoyed all the car chases, explosions, stunts and the international sites. It’s definitely not the typical fare of the holiday season in the theaters, but it is a very fun action movie that shoots the viewer through the story. The pacing is steady, the humor is a little sarcastic with a side of gentle familial teasing.
If you have had enough of the warm and fuzzies that the season provides in plentitude, Six Underground is a welcomed palate cleanser in this time of Yule. I certainly hope we get to see more of this team in a sequel.
4 out of 5 stars
The premise that we are set up for: super rich billionaire, Number One (Ryan Reynolds) has curated a team with members that each have a specific set of skills. The small team of specialists are all ghosts in the real world. The work that they do requires the anonymity of nonexistence. Each member of the six -person team have been chosen by Number One. Number Two (Melanie Laurent) is a former CIA Operative, Number Three (Manuel Garcia Rulfo) the very talented assassin, Number Four (Adria Arjona) is the Doctor. She is the one who can remove a bullet while the car is dodging through the traffic at breakneck speed. Number five (Ben Hardy, last seen in Bohemian Rhapsody as Roger Taylor) who is the parkour king. Rounding out the team is Number Six (Dave Franco) the Driver.
To say some parts of the film was subdued would have some people raise their collective eyebrows. However, the characters (Numbers Two to Six), have taken on the witty quips that we, as an audience have long associated with Ryan Reynolds. The writers have dispersed the wit and sarcasm to the other team members. This also helps to provide the comradery and establish the “family” concept that bonds the disparate backgrounds of each member. We are privy to a little bit of information of each team member, but I would have liked to see a little bit more history of each to fill in the personal motivation.
I enjoyed all the car chases, explosions, stunts and the international sites. It’s definitely not the typical fare of the holiday season in the theaters, but it is a very fun action movie that shoots the viewer through the story. The pacing is steady, the humor is a little sarcastic with a side of gentle familial teasing.
If you have had enough of the warm and fuzzies that the season provides in plentitude, Six Underground is a welcomed palate cleanser in this time of Yule. I certainly hope we get to see more of this team in a sequel.
4 out of 5 stars
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hillbilly Elegy (2020) in Movies
Apr 22, 2021
General Shoutiness and a glowering Glenn Close
I missed Ron Howard's "Hillbilly Elegy" when it came out at the end of last year, but principally wanted to catch up on it to see Glenn Close's Oscar nominated performance before Sunday's Oscars.
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
One of the most important films in a generation
I don’t think anyone will have any qualms in me saying that the LGBT community is one of the most vastly underrepresented parts of society when it comes to mainstream Hollywood movies.
Sure, we’ve had indie hits like Call Me by Your Name and Moonlight that have also performed well at the Oscars, but the closest we’ve ever gotten to a mass-market crowd pleaser has been Ang Lee’s 2005 flick Brokeback Mountain and if we’re being honest, that wasn’t marketed in a way that made it particularly mainstream.
Aiming to change all that is Love, Simon. Based on the novel Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli, Love, Simon is the first truly mainstream rom-com that features a lead gay character. But is the film a beacon of hope for a massively underrepresented LGBT community or a movie that daren’t go too far?
Everyone deserves a great love story, but for 17-year-old Simon Spier (Nick Robinson), it’s a little more complicated. He hasn’t told his family or friends that he’s gay, and he doesn’t know the identity of the anonymous classmate that he’s fallen for online. Resolving both issues proves hilarious, terrifying and life-changing.
Love, Simon is one of the most important films in a generation. Aiming to please both everyday movie-goers and be sensitive to the issues that gay people face on a daily basis, it needs to tread a very careful line, and I’m pleased to say, it does so beautifully. From the exceptional performances of the entire cast, to the warming attempts at humour, it succeeds on almost every level.
Jurassic World’s Nick Robinson is outstanding as Simon. A 17-year-old who consistently struggles to accept who he truly is would be an incredibly difficult role for even the most seasoned actors to take on, but he really is wonderful to watch. As we journey across his troubled story, the audience feels fully immersed in his actions, even those that are, shall we say, questionable.
The supporting cast too, is excellent. Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel are a great, if slightly underused presence, as Simon’s parents and along with his sister Nora (played by Talitha Bateman), they make an entirely believable family unit and it’s lovely to see them rallying around him when the inevitable ‘outing’ occurs. One touching scene in particular featuring Garner speaking to her son is sure to turn on the waterworks for many.
Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson
Director Greg Berlanti is a relative newcomer to the world of romantic comedy, but he leads with a confidence that makes him appear seasoned at this game. Touching scenes of emotion are nicely interspersed with sequences of genuinely funny comedy – the sign of a great rom-com.
Special mention must go to Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms. Albright, who manages to garner most of the laughs throughout. All of this culminates in a sweet finale that ties together everything that’s happened over the previous 110 minutes very well indeed.
If we’re to look at some of the flaws then it’s fair to say that the story outside of it featuring a gay lead is completely unoriginal. It’s been done before, but that’s kind of its charm. Flipping the classic rom-com story on its head by allowing audiences across the world to see that being gay really isn’t easy is a really nice thing to see.
In a nutshell, Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson. It’ll make you laugh and it’ll make you cry, but this is a touching romantic comedy that will absolutely go down in the history books of film. Like Brokeback Mountain did for the older gay man, Love, Simon can be a shining light for young men who are struggling to accept who they truly are.
Is this a turning point for Hollywood? Well, let’s hope so.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/07/love-simon-review-one-of-the-most-important-films-in-a-generation/
Sure, we’ve had indie hits like Call Me by Your Name and Moonlight that have also performed well at the Oscars, but the closest we’ve ever gotten to a mass-market crowd pleaser has been Ang Lee’s 2005 flick Brokeback Mountain and if we’re being honest, that wasn’t marketed in a way that made it particularly mainstream.
Aiming to change all that is Love, Simon. Based on the novel Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli, Love, Simon is the first truly mainstream rom-com that features a lead gay character. But is the film a beacon of hope for a massively underrepresented LGBT community or a movie that daren’t go too far?
Everyone deserves a great love story, but for 17-year-old Simon Spier (Nick Robinson), it’s a little more complicated. He hasn’t told his family or friends that he’s gay, and he doesn’t know the identity of the anonymous classmate that he’s fallen for online. Resolving both issues proves hilarious, terrifying and life-changing.
Love, Simon is one of the most important films in a generation. Aiming to please both everyday movie-goers and be sensitive to the issues that gay people face on a daily basis, it needs to tread a very careful line, and I’m pleased to say, it does so beautifully. From the exceptional performances of the entire cast, to the warming attempts at humour, it succeeds on almost every level.
Jurassic World’s Nick Robinson is outstanding as Simon. A 17-year-old who consistently struggles to accept who he truly is would be an incredibly difficult role for even the most seasoned actors to take on, but he really is wonderful to watch. As we journey across his troubled story, the audience feels fully immersed in his actions, even those that are, shall we say, questionable.
The supporting cast too, is excellent. Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel are a great, if slightly underused presence, as Simon’s parents and along with his sister Nora (played by Talitha Bateman), they make an entirely believable family unit and it’s lovely to see them rallying around him when the inevitable ‘outing’ occurs. One touching scene in particular featuring Garner speaking to her son is sure to turn on the waterworks for many.
Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson
Director Greg Berlanti is a relative newcomer to the world of romantic comedy, but he leads with a confidence that makes him appear seasoned at this game. Touching scenes of emotion are nicely interspersed with sequences of genuinely funny comedy – the sign of a great rom-com.
Special mention must go to Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms. Albright, who manages to garner most of the laughs throughout. All of this culminates in a sweet finale that ties together everything that’s happened over the previous 110 minutes very well indeed.
If we’re to look at some of the flaws then it’s fair to say that the story outside of it featuring a gay lead is completely unoriginal. It’s been done before, but that’s kind of its charm. Flipping the classic rom-com story on its head by allowing audiences across the world to see that being gay really isn’t easy is a really nice thing to see.
In a nutshell, Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson. It’ll make you laugh and it’ll make you cry, but this is a touching romantic comedy that will absolutely go down in the history books of film. Like Brokeback Mountain did for the older gay man, Love, Simon can be a shining light for young men who are struggling to accept who they truly are.
Is this a turning point for Hollywood? Well, let’s hope so.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/07/love-simon-review-one-of-the-most-important-films-in-a-generation/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Onward (2020) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
I had very mixed feelings about Onward after seeing the trailer, it didn't feel like Pixar and if you'd shown it to me out of context I'd never have guessed it was them.
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.