Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Great Ape-scape
Six years ago, I didn’t think I’d be telling you that a remake of the classic Planet of the Apes and its sequel would go on to be one of the finest double acts since The Two Ronnies, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Only The Brave (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
One of the year's best films
Films based on true events are ten-a-penny these days. From 2015s stunning American Sniper and 2016s breath-taking Deepwater Horizon to the critically acclaimed Patriots Day, there seems to be no stopping the ‘true to life’ variety of movies that has suddenly become very popular.
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Looking for Alaska in Books
Jan 25, 2018
I just finished reading Looking for Alaska, making it the fifth John Green book I've read, after Will Grayson, Will Grayson, Let It Snow, The Fault In Our Stars, and An Abundance of Katherines. I enjoyed Looking for Alaska immensely, just like I did the other three. (My favorite being Let It Snow, which he wrote with two other authors as a set of three related short stories.) I haven't made a habit out of reading young adult fiction, but for John Green I'll definitely make an exception. I should also pick up some of Maureen Johnson's books; her contribution to Let It Snow was excellent.
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Surprise Me in Books
Feb 2, 2018
Great supporting cast of characters (1 more)
Funny and humorous
Fun yet serious story of romance gone awry
Dan and Sylvie are happily married, with twin daughters, when they go in for their annual physicals and get the news that they could live past 100 and hence be married for 60+ years. This sends some shock-waves through their marriage. The couple prides themselves on knowing each other inside and out, even being nearly psychic with one another, so they decide to help pass the years of marriage by "surprising" each other with various things. Needless to say, it doesn't go as planned. Meanwhile, Sylvie has a (perhaps unhealthy) attachment to her late father, who died two years ago in a car crash, and is still dealing with her grief. She works at Willoughby House, a museum run by an older woman, Mrs. Kendrick, who is quite set in her ways. Robert, her nephew, has been called in to modernize museum operations, much to everyone's dismay. Suddenly, Sylvie's well-planned life is upside down in every possible way.
A good Sophie Kinsella book is a great treat and a wonderful break from stressful thrillers. I enjoy her characters and a chance to get away in the world she creates. Sylvie and Dan, have five-year-old twin daughters, just as my wife and myself, so I was immediately drawn in. "When you have baby twins, you're in the trenches together... You hone your routines. You don't waste words." Exactly. I figured I would grow attached to Sylvie pretty quickly, and I wasn't wrong.
She's an interesting character, too. I won't lie--both Sylvie and Dan are a bit dramatic at first about the health news. I get that hearing your increased life expectancy and marriage time might come as a bit of a shock, but these two really took it to the limit. Sylvie was also a bit clueless and spoiled at times, but I like that she knew that about herself and sort of embraced it as part of her personality traits.
The book really kept me befuddled at times where things were headed. It's not your typical romantic comedy where you can sort of tell how everything will work out. At some points, I was quite surprised by some of the plot turns. I found parts of it tense. I was so invested in Dan and Sylvie that I didn't enjoy when they were fighting or having issues--Kinsella does a good job of getting you involved in these characters and their lives. You're along for the ride with Sylvie, trying to figure things out. I had an inkling of some of what might have happened, but I was certainly flipping the pages frantically, trying to work it all out.
I loved that parts of this one were just really very funny. Sylvie has a sense of humor and I just enjoy the dry wit that comes across. As the surprises backfire (you just know they will, right?), you can't help but feel sorry for both Sylvie and Dan. And, yes, laugh at a little at their expense. There's also a great supporting cast of characters -- Sylvie's best friend, her co-workers, the next-door neighbors. They are humorous and really add to the book, versus standing in as props.
Overall, this one really grew on me as I was reading. It was a great diversion and a quick read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
A good Sophie Kinsella book is a great treat and a wonderful break from stressful thrillers. I enjoy her characters and a chance to get away in the world she creates. Sylvie and Dan, have five-year-old twin daughters, just as my wife and myself, so I was immediately drawn in. "When you have baby twins, you're in the trenches together... You hone your routines. You don't waste words." Exactly. I figured I would grow attached to Sylvie pretty quickly, and I wasn't wrong.
She's an interesting character, too. I won't lie--both Sylvie and Dan are a bit dramatic at first about the health news. I get that hearing your increased life expectancy and marriage time might come as a bit of a shock, but these two really took it to the limit. Sylvie was also a bit clueless and spoiled at times, but I like that she knew that about herself and sort of embraced it as part of her personality traits.
The book really kept me befuddled at times where things were headed. It's not your typical romantic comedy where you can sort of tell how everything will work out. At some points, I was quite surprised by some of the plot turns. I found parts of it tense. I was so invested in Dan and Sylvie that I didn't enjoy when they were fighting or having issues--Kinsella does a good job of getting you involved in these characters and their lives. You're along for the ride with Sylvie, trying to figure things out. I had an inkling of some of what might have happened, but I was certainly flipping the pages frantically, trying to work it all out.
I loved that parts of this one were just really very funny. Sylvie has a sense of humor and I just enjoy the dry wit that comes across. As the surprises backfire (you just know they will, right?), you can't help but feel sorry for both Sylvie and Dan. And, yes, laugh at a little at their expense. There's also a great supporting cast of characters -- Sylvie's best friend, her co-workers, the next-door neighbors. They are humorous and really add to the book, versus standing in as props.
Overall, this one really grew on me as I was reading. It was a great diversion and a quick read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Florida Project (2017) in Movies
Feb 18, 2018
Not Strong Enough To Keep My Attention
THE FLORIDA PROJECT is one of those "slice of life" films, shot on a low budget that doesn't really have a plot but exposes the audience to 2 hours of what it would be like to live the life of someone - usually a disaffected fringe group. There is no real plot, so the film needs to hang itself onto how interesting the characters - and the situation they find themselves - are.
These types of films are not usually my cup of tea, and this film was no exception.
THE FLORIDA PROJECT, conceived, written and directed by Sean Baker (who did a similar-type of film about the transgender community, TANGERINE), is about the community of people living just at the poverty line in the shadow of Walt Disney World. These people are constantly scrambling to earn money to eat and live and to pay rent at one of the seedy, rundown motels boarding just outside "the happiest place on earth".
We see this world through the eyes of Moonee - a "precocious" (I would say farel) youth who lives at one of these hotels with her mother, Halley. Moonee runs wild all day, doing whatever she wants and just 'living her life" while her mother hustles to make ends meet - all under the watchful eye of the motel's Manager, Bobby.
There is no real plot to this film. We just follow Moonee and her pals Scooty, Dicky and Jancey as they go about their day getting into misadventures. 6 year old Brooklyn Prince (in her film debut) stars as Moonee and she is an engaging enough presence, but not nearly strong enough to keep my attention for the entire 2 hours of the film - and that's the issue with this film. It relies heavily on the audience's fascination with this 6 year old and I wasn't fascinated enough to watch her for 2 hours.
Much more interesting to me to watch was another new actress, Bria Vinaite as her mother, Halley. I said she spends the film hustling - and I mean that in every sense of the word. Every interaction with another person is laced with the thought "what can I get out of this". She is always working an angle, looking for the quick score. She was a fascinating character, and I would have preferred that she would be the focus of this story.
Overseeing these two - and the other denizen's of his Motel - is Willem DaFoe playing against type as the kindly, caring Manager, Bobby. DaFoe is nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film - and it is strong work (it's good to see DaFoe with something to sink his teeth into), but is it enough for an Oscar? I don't think so. Much like Mary J. Blige in MUDBOUND, I think it is a very good performance, but I kept waiting for the "Academy Award" scene from him, and it just didn't come.
Ultimately, a labor of love for Sean Baker. It looks like a film that was made on a shoestring budget - and I'm sure that was intentional. The look and feel of this film mimics the circumstance that the characters find themselves in - including some "guerilla" filmmaking at Disney's Magic Kingdom itself. He made the type of film he wanted to make.
It just isn't the kind of film I wanted - or am interested - in seeing.
Letter Grade: C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
These types of films are not usually my cup of tea, and this film was no exception.
THE FLORIDA PROJECT, conceived, written and directed by Sean Baker (who did a similar-type of film about the transgender community, TANGERINE), is about the community of people living just at the poverty line in the shadow of Walt Disney World. These people are constantly scrambling to earn money to eat and live and to pay rent at one of the seedy, rundown motels boarding just outside "the happiest place on earth".
We see this world through the eyes of Moonee - a "precocious" (I would say farel) youth who lives at one of these hotels with her mother, Halley. Moonee runs wild all day, doing whatever she wants and just 'living her life" while her mother hustles to make ends meet - all under the watchful eye of the motel's Manager, Bobby.
There is no real plot to this film. We just follow Moonee and her pals Scooty, Dicky and Jancey as they go about their day getting into misadventures. 6 year old Brooklyn Prince (in her film debut) stars as Moonee and she is an engaging enough presence, but not nearly strong enough to keep my attention for the entire 2 hours of the film - and that's the issue with this film. It relies heavily on the audience's fascination with this 6 year old and I wasn't fascinated enough to watch her for 2 hours.
Much more interesting to me to watch was another new actress, Bria Vinaite as her mother, Halley. I said she spends the film hustling - and I mean that in every sense of the word. Every interaction with another person is laced with the thought "what can I get out of this". She is always working an angle, looking for the quick score. She was a fascinating character, and I would have preferred that she would be the focus of this story.
Overseeing these two - and the other denizen's of his Motel - is Willem DaFoe playing against type as the kindly, caring Manager, Bobby. DaFoe is nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film - and it is strong work (it's good to see DaFoe with something to sink his teeth into), but is it enough for an Oscar? I don't think so. Much like Mary J. Blige in MUDBOUND, I think it is a very good performance, but I kept waiting for the "Academy Award" scene from him, and it just didn't come.
Ultimately, a labor of love for Sean Baker. It looks like a film that was made on a shoestring budget - and I'm sure that was intentional. The look and feel of this film mimics the circumstance that the characters find themselves in - including some "guerilla" filmmaking at Disney's Magic Kingdom itself. He made the type of film he wanted to make.
It just isn't the kind of film I wanted - or am interested - in seeing.
Letter Grade: C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Goldenarrow74 (10 KP) rated My Scientology Movie (2015) in Movies
Jun 3, 2018
Frustrating but still unashamedly Louis
Now this is a good one:
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Dreamfall in Books
May 30, 2018
Great potential, poor follow-through
Dreamfall ticked me off, because it felt like the author ended the book on a massive cliff-hanger. I didn’t feel like I was given enough of the story to even faintly satisfy me. Look, I wasn’t expecting it to be a complete stand-alone, because I knew that there were more books in the series. A good series should have each book able to effectively function as a stand-alone. The author should be able to leave some threads dangling, but successfully resolve the story arc of the book while advancing the series story arc as a whole. If I had paid for this book instead of borrowing it from the library, I would be pissed. Maybe I’m being unfair. I’m willing to admit that’s a possibility, but this was just not a satisfying read. At all!
I had high hopes for Dreamfall, but the ending wasn’t the only way it disappointed me. The first couple chapters made it seem like it was going to be super creepy. Insomnia, sleep paralysis, promises of monsters, etc, are an awesome combination especially if you have experienced insomnia, sleep paralysis, and night terrors. You’re able to put yourself right there in the book with the characters. Except that, although the beginning promised great things, the fact that this is a YA book soon asserted itself. Horror-lite, except in the hands of a truly talented horror story-teller, waters down to a handful of creepy scenes and some mild tension on occasion. That’s what happened here in Dreamfall. The only stand-out scenes involved a coffin and a cave. (Though, to be fair, if you find lots of things scary, you might find more to be creeped out by in it.)
And the drama. Oh, the unnecessary drama. Now, to her credit, for once I’m not talking about a love triangle. Instead, it’s a case of the author simply trying way too hard to stretch out the drama. For non-spoiling, I’ll simply say that some of the dialogue made zero sense, and apparently no one besides Jaime ever apparently thinks to check the cameras.
The characters were okay, mostly. I’m out of the YA age range, so the chances I was going to connect with any of them were fairly small. However, I had kind of hoped that I would care about a few of them. I did mildly care about one and that was purely a circumstance of name and time of year more than anything else. Anyways, that one poofed, and thus ended my affection for any of the characters. (Though there was one twist associated with that particular character that made me grin.)
But, because I’m aware that I’ve ranted a good bit about the book, I need to balance this out a bit. Dreamfall has a very interesting plot idea. The pacing of the book is nice and quick. The dialogue between the characters is mostly believable, even if some of the ‘real’ situations are not. Even though the book swiftly lost pretty much all chance of scaring me, up until the end, I was interested – if not thrilled – by what I was reading. My main pick with this book really comes down to the fact that it feels like it was forced to be two (or more?) books instead of one. As fantastic as this plot idea is, it really is a ONE book idea. Oh, I liked the cover, too.
So disappointed because I had my hopes up, and they got thoroughly dashed.
I had high hopes for Dreamfall, but the ending wasn’t the only way it disappointed me. The first couple chapters made it seem like it was going to be super creepy. Insomnia, sleep paralysis, promises of monsters, etc, are an awesome combination especially if you have experienced insomnia, sleep paralysis, and night terrors. You’re able to put yourself right there in the book with the characters. Except that, although the beginning promised great things, the fact that this is a YA book soon asserted itself. Horror-lite, except in the hands of a truly talented horror story-teller, waters down to a handful of creepy scenes and some mild tension on occasion. That’s what happened here in Dreamfall. The only stand-out scenes involved a coffin and a cave. (Though, to be fair, if you find lots of things scary, you might find more to be creeped out by in it.)
And the drama. Oh, the unnecessary drama. Now, to her credit, for once I’m not talking about a love triangle. Instead, it’s a case of the author simply trying way too hard to stretch out the drama. For non-spoiling, I’ll simply say that some of the dialogue made zero sense, and apparently no one besides Jaime ever apparently thinks to check the cameras.
The characters were okay, mostly. I’m out of the YA age range, so the chances I was going to connect with any of them were fairly small. However, I had kind of hoped that I would care about a few of them. I did mildly care about one and that was purely a circumstance of name and time of year more than anything else. Anyways, that one poofed, and thus ended my affection for any of the characters. (Though there was one twist associated with that particular character that made me grin.)
But, because I’m aware that I’ve ranted a good bit about the book, I need to balance this out a bit. Dreamfall has a very interesting plot idea. The pacing of the book is nice and quick. The dialogue between the characters is mostly believable, even if some of the ‘real’ situations are not. Even though the book swiftly lost pretty much all chance of scaring me, up until the end, I was interested – if not thrilled – by what I was reading. My main pick with this book really comes down to the fact that it feels like it was forced to be two (or more?) books instead of one. As fantastic as this plot idea is, it really is a ONE book idea. Oh, I liked the cover, too.
So disappointed because I had my hopes up, and they got thoroughly dashed.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 8 Mile (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 8 Mile starts as we head to Detroit to follow Jimmy B-Rabbit Smith (Eminem) as along with his friends David ‘Future’ Porter (Phifer) Cheddar Bob (Jones), Sol George (Miller) are trying to make an impact in the raping world, this world is dominated by the black community though he does have the skills.
The world is filled with gangs that are out for control, Jimmy must deal with his mother Stephanie (Basinger) and her problems as well as meeting a new love in Alex (Murphy), we follow as he is desperate to get out of the town which has held back man before.
Thoughts on 8 Mile
Characters – Jimmy B-Rabbit Smith is a young man who aspires to be a rapper, he is from the wrong side of town in Detroit, where he is given a chance to prove himself in the underground rap battle world, where any wrong move could be his last move with the gangs around him. He has the close friends that will watch his back, while working a dead-end job for any money he can get. Stephanie Smith is the mother of Rabbit, she is dating an aggressive man around he sons age and struggling to pay the rent to keep the roof over her daughter’s head. She does try to do the best things but has her own personal demons holding her back. David is the closest friend to Jimmy, he offers him the chance he wants to reach the next level but also needs to be the one to stop him making the mistakes in his life. Alex is the new romance in Jimmy’s life, she dreams of leaving too, to become a model which helps the to connect on a level unlike what Jimmy is used to.
Performances – Eminem is strong in this leading role, there are a few moments where he does look lost, one second too long for fight sequences, but the emotional levels he shows good. Kim Basinger is good in her role which shows that we have the most experience from her. Mekhi Phifer continued his rise in the early 2000s with this performance where he shows his ability to blend into any film. the whole cast performers well through the film with talent that went onto bigger things.
Story – The story shows the struggles of a young man trying to break into the world of rapping in the mean streets of Detroit, he is from the wrong side of the town and the gangs are always dangerous. Seeing the struggles for everyday life is very interesting to see unfold, however I was expecting something different with more rap battles. If you are a fan of the underground rap scene this will be a story that you want to watch.
Music – The music in the film starts with a battle rap and I was expecting more as the song Lose yourself did win Best Oscar Song.
Settings – The film shows us just how difficult growing up in Detroit can be, we feel the tension and feeling of abandonment the city is feeling.
Scene of the Movie – Battle rap.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough rapping.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at the mean streets of Detroit in the battle rap world where every corner could be dangerous.
Overall: The rap world unfolded.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/27/abc-film-challenge-oscar-nomination-8-mile-2002/
The world is filled with gangs that are out for control, Jimmy must deal with his mother Stephanie (Basinger) and her problems as well as meeting a new love in Alex (Murphy), we follow as he is desperate to get out of the town which has held back man before.
Thoughts on 8 Mile
Characters – Jimmy B-Rabbit Smith is a young man who aspires to be a rapper, he is from the wrong side of town in Detroit, where he is given a chance to prove himself in the underground rap battle world, where any wrong move could be his last move with the gangs around him. He has the close friends that will watch his back, while working a dead-end job for any money he can get. Stephanie Smith is the mother of Rabbit, she is dating an aggressive man around he sons age and struggling to pay the rent to keep the roof over her daughter’s head. She does try to do the best things but has her own personal demons holding her back. David is the closest friend to Jimmy, he offers him the chance he wants to reach the next level but also needs to be the one to stop him making the mistakes in his life. Alex is the new romance in Jimmy’s life, she dreams of leaving too, to become a model which helps the to connect on a level unlike what Jimmy is used to.
Performances – Eminem is strong in this leading role, there are a few moments where he does look lost, one second too long for fight sequences, but the emotional levels he shows good. Kim Basinger is good in her role which shows that we have the most experience from her. Mekhi Phifer continued his rise in the early 2000s with this performance where he shows his ability to blend into any film. the whole cast performers well through the film with talent that went onto bigger things.
Story – The story shows the struggles of a young man trying to break into the world of rapping in the mean streets of Detroit, he is from the wrong side of the town and the gangs are always dangerous. Seeing the struggles for everyday life is very interesting to see unfold, however I was expecting something different with more rap battles. If you are a fan of the underground rap scene this will be a story that you want to watch.
Music – The music in the film starts with a battle rap and I was expecting more as the song Lose yourself did win Best Oscar Song.
Settings – The film shows us just how difficult growing up in Detroit can be, we feel the tension and feeling of abandonment the city is feeling.
Scene of the Movie – Battle rap.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough rapping.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at the mean streets of Detroit in the battle rap world where every corner could be dangerous.
Overall: The rap world unfolded.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/27/abc-film-challenge-oscar-nomination-8-mile-2002/