Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
There are numerous films about bank robbers, loveable villains who we find
ourselves cheering for throughout their escapades. Something was always
missing, though. The actions always seemed simple, shallow, and, at times,
comical in their approach. Hell or High Water breaks from many of the
tropes that we are accustomed to with reality-based crime movies. The film
follows two brothers as they rob a chain of banks in the attempt to save
their home and land from foreclosure.
Hell or High Water demonstrates to the audience the complexity with the
story in which this film is based. Marcus (Ben Foster), who is a career
criminal, returns to a life of crime in order to help his brother Toby
(Chris Pine) create a stable future for his children. He has been pushed
to his limits by the banks who have taken advantage of his dying mother
and sees robbing them as the only possible path. They must be quick,
proficient, and calculated in their actions as they are being pursued by a
Texas Ranger (Jeff Bridges) who sees this case as his chance to achieve
some peace as it keeps him further from retirement.
The film is phenomenal in being able to carry several different
storylines, issues, and directions. The film is about Americans with bank
robbing as the backdrop. It demonstrates how working people feel taken
advantage of by the banks and have no sympathy for them as they argue that
the banks are the real criminals in shady deals that result in people
losing their homes. It is an ideal modern western with “the law” hot on
the tail of the bandits. There is no clear bad guy with the brothers, just
a flawed antiheroes that several in the community will not turn against
because they understand that the boys are “one of them” and applaud them
for taking action against the banks.
Audiences will find themselves engrossed in the storyline, expansive views
of Texas, relating to the anger towards financial institutions, and
rooting for these brothers as they try to save their land and legacy.
ourselves cheering for throughout their escapades. Something was always
missing, though. The actions always seemed simple, shallow, and, at times,
comical in their approach. Hell or High Water breaks from many of the
tropes that we are accustomed to with reality-based crime movies. The film
follows two brothers as they rob a chain of banks in the attempt to save
their home and land from foreclosure.
Hell or High Water demonstrates to the audience the complexity with the
story in which this film is based. Marcus (Ben Foster), who is a career
criminal, returns to a life of crime in order to help his brother Toby
(Chris Pine) create a stable future for his children. He has been pushed
to his limits by the banks who have taken advantage of his dying mother
and sees robbing them as the only possible path. They must be quick,
proficient, and calculated in their actions as they are being pursued by a
Texas Ranger (Jeff Bridges) who sees this case as his chance to achieve
some peace as it keeps him further from retirement.
The film is phenomenal in being able to carry several different
storylines, issues, and directions. The film is about Americans with bank
robbing as the backdrop. It demonstrates how working people feel taken
advantage of by the banks and have no sympathy for them as they argue that
the banks are the real criminals in shady deals that result in people
losing their homes. It is an ideal modern western with “the law” hot on
the tail of the bandits. There is no clear bad guy with the brothers, just
a flawed antiheroes that several in the community will not turn against
because they understand that the boys are “one of them” and applaud them
for taking action against the banks.
Audiences will find themselves engrossed in the storyline, expansive views
of Texas, relating to the anger towards financial institutions, and
rooting for these brothers as they try to save their land and legacy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Thank You for Your Service (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
The words “Thank you for your service” have gone from a meaningful statement of gratitude to an empty platitude. As a veteran, I cringe when someone says it to me when buying groceries, at the gym, or at an event where there is a casual reference to veterans. The film Thank You For Your Service examines the lives of those affected by the war directly and indirectly. In the movie, Miles Teller (Whiplash, War Dogs, Fantastic Four) plays Staff Sergeant Schumann, an Iraq War vet who is returning to his family and hoping to return to some sense of normalcy. Unfortunately, he and his friends discover that the war and the horrors that they witnessed cannot be escaped.
Thank You For Your Service is able to address an aspect of war that many films overlook; how the men and women who are deployed changed by their experiences. Additionally, it tackles the questions of how their families cope with the changes to them, how they go about living a normal existence, and how people understand how they are harmed by war without any visible injuries?
The film is a testament to the men and women suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It doesn’t sugar-coat or trivialize their experiences. The emotions are raw. The visual representation of their daily terror is present. With depth, the film shows audiences who may be unfamiliar with veterans or those suffering from PTSD what the world really looks like to them and how they struggle with just existing.
The film takes the statement of “Thank you for your service” and gives it greater meaning in able to connect the problems inherent in the military, healthcare system, and how we as a society view mental health. The film allows for an authentic examination of what servicemembers deal with in their return home from war. It becomes apparent that they themselves may be able to leave the battle, but the battle stays with them, tormenting and haunting them as each day passes. The war they face never ceases. Thank You For Your Service will hopefully help foster substantive discussions about what many men and women deal with in their return from the horrors of war.
Thank You For Your Service is able to address an aspect of war that many films overlook; how the men and women who are deployed changed by their experiences. Additionally, it tackles the questions of how their families cope with the changes to them, how they go about living a normal existence, and how people understand how they are harmed by war without any visible injuries?
The film is a testament to the men and women suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It doesn’t sugar-coat or trivialize their experiences. The emotions are raw. The visual representation of their daily terror is present. With depth, the film shows audiences who may be unfamiliar with veterans or those suffering from PTSD what the world really looks like to them and how they struggle with just existing.
The film takes the statement of “Thank you for your service” and gives it greater meaning in able to connect the problems inherent in the military, healthcare system, and how we as a society view mental health. The film allows for an authentic examination of what servicemembers deal with in their return home from war. It becomes apparent that they themselves may be able to leave the battle, but the battle stays with them, tormenting and haunting them as each day passes. The war they face never ceases. Thank You For Your Service will hopefully help foster substantive discussions about what many men and women deal with in their return from the horrors of war.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019 (Updated Jan 24, 2019)
A very funny, heartwarming drama about adoption
On paper, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Instant Family is going to be just like so many other movies you've seen over the years. A couple without children of their own decides to adopt and end up with three troubled siblings of varying ages. And when you read that it's from director/co-writer Sean Anders, along with Mark Wahlberg, who worked together on both of the 'Daddy's Home' movies, you'll think you've got a pretty good idea of the tone and direction this movie is going to follow. Luckily though, while there are some genuinely very funny moments in this movie, it also manages to successfully blend it with some serious human drama and emotion and a fantastic set of characters.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Oct 1, 2019
Another DC Win
When a foster kid runs into an ancient wizard, he suddenly finds that he can turn himself into a superhero by uttering a simple word: Shazam! DC has run into a fair share of buzz saws when it comes to making quality movies, but chalk one up on the positive side with this one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Look For Me in Books
Apr 9, 2019
DD Warren is trying to find out who has killed the Baez family. Mother, Justine; her boyfriend, Charlie; her youngest daughter, Lola; and her only son, Manny. But there is another child, Roxanna, as well as two dogs, Rosie and Blaze. Where are they? Did Roxanna do this to her family? If so, why? But Roxy was the protector of the family. Her mom is a recovering alcoholic and when she was drinking Roxy made sure her siblings ate and made it to school. When the state took the kids away from Justine for a year, this role for Roxy became more prominent. After that year, the girls were never the same. Did something happen during their year in foster care that could have warranted this kind of violence? Will DD be able to find the person or people responsible for this before more people are killed? Will her new CI, Flora Dane prove to be helpful or detrimental to this case?
Thank you to NetGalley and Dutton Books for the opportunity to read and review this book.
When I made the request from NetGalley for this book, I was intrigued by the description and didn't know that this was the 9th book in the series. I don't think that I needed to read the entire series to get into this book, but I'm sure the background on some of the characters would have been helpful. So, I'm definitely going to go back now and read the rest of the series.
Can you imagine coming home and finding your whole family dead? Your younger sister clutching your brother in order to protect him from a crazy killer? How do you come back from that? Over the course of a few days Detective DD Warren is trying to find out who could do such a thing to this family. With the help of confidential informant, Flora Dane, will they be able to find the killer as well as find Roxana before it's too late. Who would want to hurt these people? What did they do? So many questions and the answers can't come fast enough, until they all do come crashing into one another in one fell swoop.
I can't wait to read more books in this series.
Thank you to NetGalley and Dutton Books for the opportunity to read and review this book.
When I made the request from NetGalley for this book, I was intrigued by the description and didn't know that this was the 9th book in the series. I don't think that I needed to read the entire series to get into this book, but I'm sure the background on some of the characters would have been helpful. So, I'm definitely going to go back now and read the rest of the series.
Can you imagine coming home and finding your whole family dead? Your younger sister clutching your brother in order to protect him from a crazy killer? How do you come back from that? Over the course of a few days Detective DD Warren is trying to find out who could do such a thing to this family. With the help of confidential informant, Flora Dane, will they be able to find the killer as well as find Roxana before it's too late. Who would want to hurt these people? What did they do? So many questions and the answers can't come fast enough, until they all do come crashing into one another in one fell swoop.
I can't wait to read more books in this series.
ClareR (5603 KP) rated The Switch in Books
Jul 18, 2020
The Switch by Beth O’Leary was a book that I was very much looking forward to reading. I had read, loved and gifted The Flatshare, her debut book. Then I read the synopsis for this book, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a little trepidatious (is that a real word?). I had visions of Tom Hanks in Big, or of Jodie Foster in Freaky Friday, if I’m honest. I needn’t have worried, because this isn’t Big or Freaky Friday (sorry, if that’s what you’re expecting 🤷🏼♀️).
Instead, this is the story of two Eileens: 79 year old Eileen and her granddaughter Leena who is 29. They are both at times of great change in their lives. They’ve both just experienced the death of Leena’s sister, and Eileen’s husband has left her for a younger woman.
When Leena comes home for a visit, she realises that Eileen has been casing the men in the village with a mind to dating one. There isn’t a great choice. After a look on a dating website, she realises that the choice of men in their 70’s is far greater in London, so Leena creates an account on the dating website for her Grandma, and they swap lives for 8 weeks - the length of time that Leena’s boss has given her as a holiday, to try and recover from the loss of her sister.
I adored this book. Need I say more? OK, I suppose I should.
I loved how Eileen was treated as an adult with real feelings and sexual urges. She may be 79, but she isn’t some sexless old biddy, treated like a child. As much as we don’t necessarily like to think of our mothers/ grandmothers having sex , it’s highly likely that they do, and why not?
I loved how the death of Leena’s sister was treated. The long, slow process of grieving, and how it doesn’t just switch off, that there are no rules.
Leena’s love life is very entertaining too, and I was rooting for one particular character throughout.
So in conclusion, just do yourself a favour and go and buy this book. It’s ace. Beth O’Leary writes wonderful stories it would seem, about wonderful, quirky, normal people. I’ll be waiting and ready to read whatever she puts out there next, of that I’m sure!
Instead, this is the story of two Eileens: 79 year old Eileen and her granddaughter Leena who is 29. They are both at times of great change in their lives. They’ve both just experienced the death of Leena’s sister, and Eileen’s husband has left her for a younger woman.
When Leena comes home for a visit, she realises that Eileen has been casing the men in the village with a mind to dating one. There isn’t a great choice. After a look on a dating website, she realises that the choice of men in their 70’s is far greater in London, so Leena creates an account on the dating website for her Grandma, and they swap lives for 8 weeks - the length of time that Leena’s boss has given her as a holiday, to try and recover from the loss of her sister.
I adored this book. Need I say more? OK, I suppose I should.
I loved how Eileen was treated as an adult with real feelings and sexual urges. She may be 79, but she isn’t some sexless old biddy, treated like a child. As much as we don’t necessarily like to think of our mothers/ grandmothers having sex , it’s highly likely that they do, and why not?
I loved how the death of Leena’s sister was treated. The long, slow process of grieving, and how it doesn’t just switch off, that there are no rules.
Leena’s love life is very entertaining too, and I was rooting for one particular character throughout.
So in conclusion, just do yourself a favour and go and buy this book. It’s ace. Beth O’Leary writes wonderful stories it would seem, about wonderful, quirky, normal people. I’ll be waiting and ready to read whatever she puts out there next, of that I’m sure!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.