Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated McLintock! (1963) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Visuals but Nothing Else
A cattle baron’s wife returns after a two-year separation wanting a divorce.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Saving Ruby King in Books
Jun 18, 2020
Ruby King is twenty-four-years-old when her mother, Alice, is found murdered in the home she shared with Ruby and Ruby's father, Lebanon. The police show little interest in--to them--another death in the King's black neighborhood, but Alice's death unhinges Ruby and leaves her alone with her violent, abusive father. Her only confidante is her best friend, Layla, who knows how long Alice and Ruby have suffered under Lebanon's wrath. But Layla is angry that Ruby won't do more to get away from Lebanon and she's even angrier at her father, a pastor, who has been close to Lebanon all these years, and yet never did anything to free Alice or Ruby from his abuse. Layla is determined to save Ruby, but as she works to rescue her friend, she starts to uncover a world of secrets and lies flowing back generations.
"I'm stitched together by the lies I tell myself and the lies people want to believe about me." ~Alice
I found this excellent and timely book to be incredibly well-written, with a power and tenderness to it that goes far behind your typical debut novel (I had to double check that this was actually West's first novel, I was so impressed).
West tells her story from a variety of points of view--Ruby; her late mother, Alice; her father, Lebanon; her best friend, Layla; Layla's father, a pastor; and more. We even hear from a central figure in all of these characters' lives--their church, via its omnipresent voice. The plot spans generations, with West giving a nuanced look at each of her complex characters. She does an amazing job of showing the power of family, for both good and bad. How choices can affect generations: one person's bad decisions can pass poison on, with children reliving dysfunction and sins.
"How can there be a me without her?" ~Ruby
No one is simply good or bad here, though Lebanon is not an easy-to-like man. Abused and neglected by his own parent, Sara, we see how Sara's neglect has turned Lebanon hard. But West is such a good writer that Lebanon is not a one-dimensional bad guy, as much as you want to hate him. I was incredibly impressed at how she could create sympathy for so many of her players, even when they did despicable things.
"Without Sara, who do I blame for...being me? Are children supposed to forgive their parents for the horrible things they've done?" ~Lebanon
This novel does an impressive job at delving into racism, domestic abuse, and sexual assault and trauma. The city of Chicago appears as its own character, springing to life via West's lovely prose. She expertly shows the difficulties black people face on the south side (and in general). I read this book during George Floyd's murder and found myself highlighting passages about police brutality that just hit me right in the gut. It's very powerful.
West's book features a variety of characters--they can be hard to keep track of at first, and I was glad to have the family tree in the beginning of the book. A few times the plot felt repetitious and the middle dragged a bit, but it picked up in the second half. There's a surprising amount of twists and turns. Overall, this is a realistic look at racism and domestic violence, but also friendship. It's quite well-written and layered with a twinge of hope throughout. I can't wait to see what West writes next. 4+ stars.
"I'm stitched together by the lies I tell myself and the lies people want to believe about me." ~Alice
I found this excellent and timely book to be incredibly well-written, with a power and tenderness to it that goes far behind your typical debut novel (I had to double check that this was actually West's first novel, I was so impressed).
West tells her story from a variety of points of view--Ruby; her late mother, Alice; her father, Lebanon; her best friend, Layla; Layla's father, a pastor; and more. We even hear from a central figure in all of these characters' lives--their church, via its omnipresent voice. The plot spans generations, with West giving a nuanced look at each of her complex characters. She does an amazing job of showing the power of family, for both good and bad. How choices can affect generations: one person's bad decisions can pass poison on, with children reliving dysfunction and sins.
"How can there be a me without her?" ~Ruby
No one is simply good or bad here, though Lebanon is not an easy-to-like man. Abused and neglected by his own parent, Sara, we see how Sara's neglect has turned Lebanon hard. But West is such a good writer that Lebanon is not a one-dimensional bad guy, as much as you want to hate him. I was incredibly impressed at how she could create sympathy for so many of her players, even when they did despicable things.
"Without Sara, who do I blame for...being me? Are children supposed to forgive their parents for the horrible things they've done?" ~Lebanon
This novel does an impressive job at delving into racism, domestic abuse, and sexual assault and trauma. The city of Chicago appears as its own character, springing to life via West's lovely prose. She expertly shows the difficulties black people face on the south side (and in general). I read this book during George Floyd's murder and found myself highlighting passages about police brutality that just hit me right in the gut. It's very powerful.
West's book features a variety of characters--they can be hard to keep track of at first, and I was glad to have the family tree in the beginning of the book. A few times the plot felt repetitious and the middle dragged a bit, but it picked up in the second half. There's a surprising amount of twists and turns. Overall, this is a realistic look at racism and domestic violence, but also friendship. It's quite well-written and layered with a twinge of hope throughout. I can't wait to see what West writes next. 4+ stars.
Debbiereadsbook (1454 KP) rated Charles (Learning to Love #1) in Books
Jul 28, 2021
deep and complex emotions involved, but I loved it!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarain, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Ballistic: Standard Edition
Sports and Utilities
App
Get Ballistic Standard Edition Today!!! "I shoot on Team Louisiana Precision Rifles in Tactical...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
