Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Fun Characters, Fun Ride
In this sequel of sorts, two secret agents set out to stop an intergalactic threat. Oh, the reviews for this thing were just plain horrible. Honestly, I didn’t think it was bad. Good? No. Decent enough to watch while folding laundry? Sure.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
While the first ten minutes won’t blow you away, it was definitely enough to get my attention. I didn’t watch it and get turned off from the rest of the movie. Not perfect, but still fun.
Characters: 10
Men In Black typically knocks it out of the park with an array of unique characters and Men In Black International is no exception. It’s fun knowing that any and everything could be an alien and watching those lines get blurred is always fun. Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and Agent M (Tessa Thompson) also make a great combo in their reuniting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I love the advancements they have expanded on since the third film. The forcefields blocking an intergalactic scene of the crime is a particularly nice touch. These type of sci-fi movies require much attention to detail and this movie doesn’t disappoint. From the all-white confines of the chic MIB offices to an interspecies card game, the movie is a visual feast.
Conflict: 10
Action you say? Not bad at all. Again, very consistent and fun to watch. The stakes were high enough to keep me engaged. The battles were sprawling and sharp. It really is a good time.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 1
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
Resolution: 2
Overall: 71
While I liked some of the twists Men In Black International tried to throw in, there was really nothing separating it from being your average, run-of-the-mill action movie. Fun? Sure, but it doesn’t have staying power or hold with stronger movies in the genre. Definitely doesn’t deserve the 22% Rotten Tomatoes gave it, but also not the strongest of the series.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
While the first ten minutes won’t blow you away, it was definitely enough to get my attention. I didn’t watch it and get turned off from the rest of the movie. Not perfect, but still fun.
Characters: 10
Men In Black typically knocks it out of the park with an array of unique characters and Men In Black International is no exception. It’s fun knowing that any and everything could be an alien and watching those lines get blurred is always fun. Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and Agent M (Tessa Thompson) also make a great combo in their reuniting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I love the advancements they have expanded on since the third film. The forcefields blocking an intergalactic scene of the crime is a particularly nice touch. These type of sci-fi movies require much attention to detail and this movie doesn’t disappoint. From the all-white confines of the chic MIB offices to an interspecies card game, the movie is a visual feast.
Conflict: 10
Action you say? Not bad at all. Again, very consistent and fun to watch. The stakes were high enough to keep me engaged. The battles were sprawling and sharp. It really is a good time.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 1
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
Resolution: 2
Overall: 71
While I liked some of the twists Men In Black International tried to throw in, there was really nothing separating it from being your average, run-of-the-mill action movie. Fun? Sure, but it doesn’t have staying power or hold with stronger movies in the genre. Definitely doesn’t deserve the 22% Rotten Tomatoes gave it, but also not the strongest of the series.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Girl with All the Gifts in Books
Mar 15, 2018
I went to see the film adaptation of this on Saturday, and I have to say I was pretty impressed with it! Obviously the book is a whole lot better, but I think they did a pretty good job of transferring the book to screen. The characters felt a bit different to how they came across in the novel, <spoiler> Caldwell was nowhere near as evil and we didn't get to know Parks enough for his death to be that traumatising like it was in the novel</spoiler>, but I'd say it's one of the better book-to-film movies!
---------------------------------------
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/the-girl-with-all-the-gifts-m-r-carey
<b>4.5 stars</b>
I don’t really want to say a lot about this book, for 2 reasons. Reason one is to keep potential readers in the dark about what this entire book is. I feel like it’s one of those reads where you want to go in blind, it definitely made it more enjoyable for me going into it that way. The second reason is more selfish… I felt a lot of different emotions going through this book, especially within the last 50 pages! I have no desire to relive the rollercoaster I went through! I feel like the emotions from this book are gonna stay with me for a long time, so don’t expect much from this review other than spoilers (which will be hidden) of me getting emotional.
If you’re looking for a book that gets straight into a story then this will definitely please you. There’s no dilly dallying whatsoever, we get into the meat of the book within the first 50 pages which is such a relief because I hate chunky books that seem to take forever to get into the story. I wouldn’t recommend reading this if you have quite serious trypophobia. I have it quite mildly but there were a lot of times where I was reading and getting very panicky and sick feeling because of the grotesque imagery.
Each character is developed so incredibly well, as there aren’t many throughout the book we’ve got loads of time to get to know them with each chapter flitting about between perspectives. <spoiler>MELANIE WAS CUTE AF AND SO MATURE AND LOVELY AND AWW. HELEN WAS BADASS AND SASSY AND AWESOME. PARKS WAS A GENTLE GIANT AND IM SO HAPPY HE GOT TO FUCK HELEN BEFORE HE DIED CAUSE HIS DEATH MADE ME SUPER DUPER SERIOUSLY SAD. CAROLINE WAS A BITCH FROM START TO FINISH, I FELT NO REMORSE FOR HER DEATH, SHE WAS EVIL.</spoiler>
I don’t know if I’d class this as purely a thriller, it’s is also a horror and a sci-fi, which is definitely a great mix. It was definitely a really enjoyable read and I’m looking forward to reading more of Carey’s work. <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26030697-fellside?ac=1&from_search=true">Fellside</a>; is next on my list to read!
---------------------------------------
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/the-girl-with-all-the-gifts-m-r-carey
<b>4.5 stars</b>
I don’t really want to say a lot about this book, for 2 reasons. Reason one is to keep potential readers in the dark about what this entire book is. I feel like it’s one of those reads where you want to go in blind, it definitely made it more enjoyable for me going into it that way. The second reason is more selfish… I felt a lot of different emotions going through this book, especially within the last 50 pages! I have no desire to relive the rollercoaster I went through! I feel like the emotions from this book are gonna stay with me for a long time, so don’t expect much from this review other than spoilers (which will be hidden) of me getting emotional.
If you’re looking for a book that gets straight into a story then this will definitely please you. There’s no dilly dallying whatsoever, we get into the meat of the book within the first 50 pages which is such a relief because I hate chunky books that seem to take forever to get into the story. I wouldn’t recommend reading this if you have quite serious trypophobia. I have it quite mildly but there were a lot of times where I was reading and getting very panicky and sick feeling because of the grotesque imagery.
Each character is developed so incredibly well, as there aren’t many throughout the book we’ve got loads of time to get to know them with each chapter flitting about between perspectives. <spoiler>MELANIE WAS CUTE AF AND SO MATURE AND LOVELY AND AWW. HELEN WAS BADASS AND SASSY AND AWESOME. PARKS WAS A GENTLE GIANT AND IM SO HAPPY HE GOT TO FUCK HELEN BEFORE HE DIED CAUSE HIS DEATH MADE ME SUPER DUPER SERIOUSLY SAD. CAROLINE WAS A BITCH FROM START TO FINISH, I FELT NO REMORSE FOR HER DEATH, SHE WAS EVIL.</spoiler>
I don’t know if I’d class this as purely a thriller, it’s is also a horror and a sci-fi, which is definitely a great mix. It was definitely a really enjoyable read and I’m looking forward to reading more of Carey’s work. <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26030697-fellside?ac=1&from_search=true">Fellside</a>; is next on my list to read!
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The Last Straw in Books
Apr 7, 2019
When I read the synopsis for this book, I thought “Aah, here’s a story with some oomph!” The book starts with the line “Perry Mason unzipped his pants…” and I thought “I didn’t think it was that sort of a book!” There were no erotic scenes though, but there was violence and drama aplenty!
The events in the book are sparked by the witnessing of a murder at a car hijacking gone awry. However, there is a snowball-come-avalanche effect for the surrounding characters. The central character is Rico, a hit man with conscience, albeit a very selective conscience. Rico’s sworn enemy is tasked with taking out the murder witness, but this puts a friend of Rico’s at risk, and tensions quickly escalate between the hit men.
There are countless high octane action scenes, and they are shocking! Rico often put me in mind of Jack Reacher, and his killer instincts mean the action scenes are so rapid that I found myself reading them twice to take everything in. And the death count becomes comparable to Game of Thrones!
In between the action scenes, a lot of background information is provided on the surrounding characters, such as the on the lawyer looking after the murder witness. And many of these characters are often working through their own moral dilemmas in relation to what’s going on. (As usual, NO spoilers in my book reviews!)
This book is the second in a series, and I usually start with the first in a series (unless I’ve seen the first portrayed in a film) but the synopsis had me sold! Much of what happened in the first book is explained in dribs and drabs throughout the second. You certainly don’t need to read the first book to enjoy the second, but I imagine you’d get more from it by reading the whole series.
It wasn’t always the most realistic story in places; like when Rico does nothing to cover his tracks after a hit, but then again we often read novels as a means of escapism, it’s not supposed to represent the real world. And in fairness, it’s done a damn good job of distracting me from my current worries. Recommended!
The events in the book are sparked by the witnessing of a murder at a car hijacking gone awry. However, there is a snowball-come-avalanche effect for the surrounding characters. The central character is Rico, a hit man with conscience, albeit a very selective conscience. Rico’s sworn enemy is tasked with taking out the murder witness, but this puts a friend of Rico’s at risk, and tensions quickly escalate between the hit men.
There are countless high octane action scenes, and they are shocking! Rico often put me in mind of Jack Reacher, and his killer instincts mean the action scenes are so rapid that I found myself reading them twice to take everything in. And the death count becomes comparable to Game of Thrones!
In between the action scenes, a lot of background information is provided on the surrounding characters, such as the on the lawyer looking after the murder witness. And many of these characters are often working through their own moral dilemmas in relation to what’s going on. (As usual, NO spoilers in my book reviews!)
This book is the second in a series, and I usually start with the first in a series (unless I’ve seen the first portrayed in a film) but the synopsis had me sold! Much of what happened in the first book is explained in dribs and drabs throughout the second. You certainly don’t need to read the first book to enjoy the second, but I imagine you’d get more from it by reading the whole series.
It wasn’t always the most realistic story in places; like when Rico does nothing to cover his tracks after a hit, but then again we often read novels as a means of escapism, it’s not supposed to represent the real world. And in fairness, it’s done a damn good job of distracting me from my current worries. Recommended!
Lonely Planet Istanbul
Lonely Planet and Virginia Maxwell
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Istanbul is your passport to...
Lonely Planet London
Lonely Planet, Emilie Filou, Peter Dragicevich and Steve Fallon
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet London is your passport to...