Search
Search results
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.)
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Alanna: The First Adventure in Books
Apr 16, 2018
The Song of the Lioness quartet is Tamora Pierce's first set of books. I read her latest trilogy (the Beka Cooper trilogy) first, which didn't exactly prepare me for The Song of the Lioness. It's obvious, going from the latest trilogy to her first writing, how much her writing has matured since the 80s. My first thought upon completing Alanna: the First Adventure was "I'm very glad she's gotten better at writing!" The story itself is still interesting and worth reading, but the style is a little difficult to read when I KNOW how well she writes now. The characters are mostly one-dimensional; few of the side characters seem to have plots going or events happening to them when they're not with Alanna. Characters pop up, have a significant interaction with Alanna, and are gone again, with no indication they exist outside of their usefulness to the main character. This is in stark contrast to her latest work, where every character that has a significant role to play has a history of their own, and thoughts and feelings of their own. They're much more fleshed out in her recent books.
That complaint aside, the Alanna books are really the foundation that the rest of Tortall was built upon. It's interesting to see how Pierce has fleshed out some of the concepts she touched on in the Alanna saga, and it's fun to see where some of the things from the Beka Cooper trilogy originated. It also pays to keep in mind that though the Alanna books were written first, the Beka Cooper trilogy is based two hundred years earlier. We learn a lot more about the office of The Rogue in the Beka Cooper trilogy, something that isn't explained very well in the Alanna quartet, even though one of Alanna's main romantic interests is George Cooper (yes, a descendant of Beka!), the Rogue. Pierce also never explains the origins of Alanna's cat, Faithful, in the actual Alanna books. That explanation lies in the Beka Cooper books as well.
The Song of the Lioness quartet is the story of a girl who decides to rebel against tradition and follow her heart to become a knight. In her time, ladies simply do NOT become knights. They learn to organize households and marry well. Alanna, however, is lucky enough to have a twin brother who does not want to become a knight; instead Thom wants to be a mage. So when they're sent off to face their futures, they switch places, with Alanna becoming "Alan", the younger twin. (Thom stays Thom; the school that ladies are sent to is the same school mages start at.)
Alan/Alanna begins as a page, then moves to squire, and eventually a knight. Her secret is discovered, but due to her influential friends, most of whom knew she was a girl by then, she is able to keep her status. Her adventures take her from uncovering a plot against the royal family, to being adopted by a desert tribe, to recovering a magic jewel of prosperity, with many small adventures in between.
I love reading Pierce's heroines; both Alanna and Beka have problems reconciling their feminine natures with the work they've chosen. The scenes where Alanna's love interests see her in a dress for the first time, instead of her normal boy-garb and armor, is heart-warming in one case, and sad in another. In both womens' lives it's the man who can accept all of their aspects who ultimately wins their heart, which is a wonderful message.
Ultimately, the technical flaws in the writing of the Alanna saga faded as I became absorbed in the story. I'll be requesting more Tortall books from the library in the near future!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
That complaint aside, the Alanna books are really the foundation that the rest of Tortall was built upon. It's interesting to see how Pierce has fleshed out some of the concepts she touched on in the Alanna saga, and it's fun to see where some of the things from the Beka Cooper trilogy originated. It also pays to keep in mind that though the Alanna books were written first, the Beka Cooper trilogy is based two hundred years earlier. We learn a lot more about the office of The Rogue in the Beka Cooper trilogy, something that isn't explained very well in the Alanna quartet, even though one of Alanna's main romantic interests is George Cooper (yes, a descendant of Beka!), the Rogue. Pierce also never explains the origins of Alanna's cat, Faithful, in the actual Alanna books. That explanation lies in the Beka Cooper books as well.
The Song of the Lioness quartet is the story of a girl who decides to rebel against tradition and follow her heart to become a knight. In her time, ladies simply do NOT become knights. They learn to organize households and marry well. Alanna, however, is lucky enough to have a twin brother who does not want to become a knight; instead Thom wants to be a mage. So when they're sent off to face their futures, they switch places, with Alanna becoming "Alan", the younger twin. (Thom stays Thom; the school that ladies are sent to is the same school mages start at.)
Alan/Alanna begins as a page, then moves to squire, and eventually a knight. Her secret is discovered, but due to her influential friends, most of whom knew she was a girl by then, she is able to keep her status. Her adventures take her from uncovering a plot against the royal family, to being adopted by a desert tribe, to recovering a magic jewel of prosperity, with many small adventures in between.
I love reading Pierce's heroines; both Alanna and Beka have problems reconciling their feminine natures with the work they've chosen. The scenes where Alanna's love interests see her in a dress for the first time, instead of her normal boy-garb and armor, is heart-warming in one case, and sad in another. In both womens' lives it's the man who can accept all of their aspects who ultimately wins their heart, which is a wonderful message.
Ultimately, the technical flaws in the writing of the Alanna saga faded as I became absorbed in the story. I'll be requesting more Tortall books from the library in the near future!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Welcome Home (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
The holiday from hell
We’ve all had holidays that didn’t go according to plan, but George Ratliff’s new thriller takes this idea to a whole new level. Welcome Home follows couple Cassie and Bryan as they travel to Italy together. They’ve rented a secluded, spacious home for a few days, so they can spend some quality time together. So far, so simple. However, it’s soon revealed that they’ve been having relationship problems due to Cassie having a drunken one night stand. It’s clear that this isn’t going to be an easy trip for them, and that’s before we meet the real threat.
Aaron Paul and Emily Ratajkowski are great in the lead roles. They feel like your everyday, plausible couple who are simply trying to repair their relationship. I found myself rooting for them and hoping they could reconnect throughout. Despite the slow pacing in places, I did genuinely care about them as characters. Without the strength of their acting, I think this film might have struggled in places as some of it seemed to drag or could’ve easily been cut out. Welcome Home does have similarities to the 2008 film The Strangers, in which see a strained relationship set within a secluded summer home, with the couple being terrorised by masked murderers.
This film’s antagonist, Frederico, is less ambiguous than that, and instead spends time with the couple and tries to befriend them in order to gain their trust. Cassie is a lot more receptive to this than Bryan, who is distrustful of Frederico after he brought Cassie back to the house when she sprained her ankle whilst running. He believes something else is going on, based on the one night stand. At first they believe he’s a neighbour, so nothing really seems out of the ordinary. Then, it starts to get weird. He says some strange things and starts showing up uninvited, even running into them on the street and deciding to turn up to the house to cook dinner.
Every second that Frederico’s on the screen is an uncomfortable one, and you know he’s not the innocent person he’s pretending to be. It’s only a matter of time before his true intentions are revealed to the couple, putting them both in danger. Italian actor Riccardo Scamarcio really blew me away in this film and I’m excited to see more from him.
Although it takes a while to get going, the second and third act of Welcome Home is a tense and unnerving experience. Frederico goes from friendly, helpful neighbour to a creepy psychopath very quickly, and it turns out he has very dark intentions for the couple. He spends the film manipulating them and turning them against each other. I won’t spoil it for you, but it turns this couple’s holiday into a complete nightmare. I did quite like the big reveal at the end, though it seems a little far-fetched it’s not beyond the realms of possibility given the digital age that we live in. This fact is emphasised by the voyeuristic nature of the camera, how we’re always peeking around doors or watching things we shouldn’t be.
I have seen stronger thrillers with better pacing, but Welcome Home is certainly an entertaining watch if you’re looking for a new, exciting story with a strong cast list. It puts a fun twist on your classic home invasion horror, with a charming, magnetic antagonist to really lure you in. I’d recommend giving it a go if you get the opportunity, as it’s worth it for the characters and the ending.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/13/the-holiday-from-hell-a-review-of-welcome-home/
Aaron Paul and Emily Ratajkowski are great in the lead roles. They feel like your everyday, plausible couple who are simply trying to repair their relationship. I found myself rooting for them and hoping they could reconnect throughout. Despite the slow pacing in places, I did genuinely care about them as characters. Without the strength of their acting, I think this film might have struggled in places as some of it seemed to drag or could’ve easily been cut out. Welcome Home does have similarities to the 2008 film The Strangers, in which see a strained relationship set within a secluded summer home, with the couple being terrorised by masked murderers.
This film’s antagonist, Frederico, is less ambiguous than that, and instead spends time with the couple and tries to befriend them in order to gain their trust. Cassie is a lot more receptive to this than Bryan, who is distrustful of Frederico after he brought Cassie back to the house when she sprained her ankle whilst running. He believes something else is going on, based on the one night stand. At first they believe he’s a neighbour, so nothing really seems out of the ordinary. Then, it starts to get weird. He says some strange things and starts showing up uninvited, even running into them on the street and deciding to turn up to the house to cook dinner.
Every second that Frederico’s on the screen is an uncomfortable one, and you know he’s not the innocent person he’s pretending to be. It’s only a matter of time before his true intentions are revealed to the couple, putting them both in danger. Italian actor Riccardo Scamarcio really blew me away in this film and I’m excited to see more from him.
Although it takes a while to get going, the second and third act of Welcome Home is a tense and unnerving experience. Frederico goes from friendly, helpful neighbour to a creepy psychopath very quickly, and it turns out he has very dark intentions for the couple. He spends the film manipulating them and turning them against each other. I won’t spoil it for you, but it turns this couple’s holiday into a complete nightmare. I did quite like the big reveal at the end, though it seems a little far-fetched it’s not beyond the realms of possibility given the digital age that we live in. This fact is emphasised by the voyeuristic nature of the camera, how we’re always peeking around doors or watching things we shouldn’t be.
I have seen stronger thrillers with better pacing, but Welcome Home is certainly an entertaining watch if you’re looking for a new, exciting story with a strong cast list. It puts a fun twist on your classic home invasion horror, with a charming, magnetic antagonist to really lure you in. I’d recommend giving it a go if you get the opportunity, as it’s worth it for the characters and the ending.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/13/the-holiday-from-hell-a-review-of-welcome-home/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The White Queen (The Plantagenet and Tudor Novels, #2) in Books
Dec 19, 2018
Not quite sure why I decided to read this as the only other book I've read by Gregory was The Other Boleyn Girl, which I thought was pretty dreadful. I suppose I find it difficult to keep away from anything connected with The Wars of the Roses; I certainly found that I'd read almost every book listed in the bibliography and could have recommended a few more that might have been beneficial for the author to have perused.....
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Wonder Woman: Her Greatest Battles in Books
Aug 21, 2018
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-review-1.png"/>;
This is my first graphic novel, and I did enjoy the art in it! This book contains the greatest battles of Wonder Woman. It is a compilation of seven comic book scenes, all sharing a different battle of Wonder Woman, and a different kind of art.. But even though I enjoyed the art, as a first one, this didn’t make me happy.
The stories are put in this compilation chronologically by when they were made, starting from a scene that was made in 1987, until the last one, which was made in 2013. I will give a brief comment on all of them - in order:
<b>‘’Power Play’’ from Wonder Woman #6 (1987)
<i>Plot & Pencils: George Perez, Script: Len Wein, Inks: Bruce Patterson, Colors: Tatjana Wood, Letters: John Costanza, Cover: George Perez</i></b>
The first story is a scene where Diana is fighting the god of war - Ares. As a first one, it is not the best descriptive piece of information - so for a person that haven’t heard about Wonder Woman before, this one won’t be of any use. I also didn’t quite enjoy the art in this one.
<b><i>‘’And for the first time in his immortal existence, the war-god weeps… for, without those alive to worship him, Ares’ power swiftly wanes…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’In The Forest Of The Night’’ from Wonder Woman #119 (1997)
<i>Story & Art: John Byrne; Colors: Patricia Mulvihill; Cover: Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez</i></b>
In this scene, Diana is on a mission to save officer Michael P. Schorr of the G.C.P.D. from the cheetah that used to be Barbara Minerva. Diana manages to convince Barbara to win the battle with herself and become human again. Even though I didn’t quite enjoy the art - I did enjoy the story itself. It was a great lesson of fighting for who you are within, and winning battles with yourself and not surrendering to anything that might be in your way. We also get to have a little sneak-peak of how Wonder Woman started existing in the first place.
<b><i>‘’Yes, Mike, it is not widely known, but I was not born as mortals are, my mother sculpted a baby from the clay of Themyscira and the Gods themselves breathed life into that clay. ‘’</i></b>
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-cover-4.png"/>;
<b>‘’Stoned: Conclusion’’ from Wonder Woman #210 (2005)
<i>Script: Greg Rucka; Pencils: Drew Johnson; Inks: Ray Snyder; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
This one is a gladiator battle between Wonder Woman and Medusa. I really enjoyed this one, the art was amazing and we even get a few scenes with Circe-witch on it. I love how Wonder Woman is presented to be smart and the sacrifice that she made was very brave. Such a powerful story! Amazing!
<b>‘’Sacrifice: Part four’’ from Wonder Woman #219 (2005)
<i>Scripts: Greg Rucka; Pencils:Rags Morales, David Lopez, Tom Derenick, Georges Jeanty & Karl Kerschl; Inks: Mark Propst, BIT, Dexter Vines, Bob Petrecca & Nelson; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
Superman has been brainwashed and wants to kill Diana. Not much happens apart from Wonder Woman and Superman fighting. I didn’t like this one, only because of one quote that says:
<b><i>‘’You’ll forgive me for saying it, princess, but you look good on your knees…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’A Murder Of Crows: Part Two - Throwdown’’ from Wonder Woman #41 (2010)
<i>Script: Gail Simone; Pencils: Chris Batista & Fernando Dagnino; Inks: Doug Hazlewood & Raul Fernandez; Colors: Brad Anderson; Letters: Travis Lanham; Cover: Aaron Lopresti</i></b>
Even though the beginning features Achilles and Patroclus, after a page or two we don’t see them anymore, and I am standing like… what’s the point in mentioning them in the first place then? This piece of art contains a battle between Power Girl and Wonder Woman, and how Power Girl can never be like Wonder Woman, unless, of course, she has no other choice.
I liked this one, maybe the most, even though the art was just average.
<b>‘’Justice League: Part Three’’ from Justice League #3 (2011)
<i>Script: Geoff Johns; Pencils: Jim Lee; Inks: Scott Williams; Colors: Alex Sinclair, HI-FI & Gabe Ettaeb; Letters: Pat Brosseau; Cover: Jim Lee, Scott Williams & Alex Sinclair</i></b>
This piece of art was different than anything else in this book. We see a lot of famous heroes fight, like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and of course, Wonder Woman. The art is really colourful, which I enjoyed, but the story was confusing. See, it started from the middle of a comic book, and then ended unfinished. It only covered the part where Wonder Woman appears, but it confused me and I didn’t enjoy the story as much. Again, I didn’t like the way how they express themselves to a woman. They see Wonder Woman and they call dibs on her. Really?
<b>‘’Goddown’’ from Wonder Woman #23 (2013)
<i>Script: Brian Azzarello; Art: Cliff Chiang; Colors: Matthew Wilson; Letters: Jared K. Fletcher; Cover: Cliff Chiang </i></b>
A very confusing chapter, and I didn’t enjoy it at all. It was about Hera and her children, and Wonder Woman protecting them. Even though this is the newest made, it didn’t seem like it, and the art seemed old-style.
Overall, I didn’t enjoy it as much, and it wouldn’t be something I’d choose in the future. I’d rather go with a proper beginning-to-end story rather than a compilation next time.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-review-1.png"/>;
This is my first graphic novel, and I did enjoy the art in it! This book contains the greatest battles of Wonder Woman. It is a compilation of seven comic book scenes, all sharing a different battle of Wonder Woman, and a different kind of art.. But even though I enjoyed the art, as a first one, this didn’t make me happy.
The stories are put in this compilation chronologically by when they were made, starting from a scene that was made in 1987, until the last one, which was made in 2013. I will give a brief comment on all of them - in order:
<b>‘’Power Play’’ from Wonder Woman #6 (1987)
<i>Plot & Pencils: George Perez, Script: Len Wein, Inks: Bruce Patterson, Colors: Tatjana Wood, Letters: John Costanza, Cover: George Perez</i></b>
The first story is a scene where Diana is fighting the god of war - Ares. As a first one, it is not the best descriptive piece of information - so for a person that haven’t heard about Wonder Woman before, this one won’t be of any use. I also didn’t quite enjoy the art in this one.
<b><i>‘’And for the first time in his immortal existence, the war-god weeps… for, without those alive to worship him, Ares’ power swiftly wanes…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’In The Forest Of The Night’’ from Wonder Woman #119 (1997)
<i>Story & Art: John Byrne; Colors: Patricia Mulvihill; Cover: Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez</i></b>
In this scene, Diana is on a mission to save officer Michael P. Schorr of the G.C.P.D. from the cheetah that used to be Barbara Minerva. Diana manages to convince Barbara to win the battle with herself and become human again. Even though I didn’t quite enjoy the art - I did enjoy the story itself. It was a great lesson of fighting for who you are within, and winning battles with yourself and not surrendering to anything that might be in your way. We also get to have a little sneak-peak of how Wonder Woman started existing in the first place.
<b><i>‘’Yes, Mike, it is not widely known, but I was not born as mortals are, my mother sculpted a baby from the clay of Themyscira and the Gods themselves breathed life into that clay. ‘’</i></b>
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/book-cover-4.png"/>;
<b>‘’Stoned: Conclusion’’ from Wonder Woman #210 (2005)
<i>Script: Greg Rucka; Pencils: Drew Johnson; Inks: Ray Snyder; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
This one is a gladiator battle between Wonder Woman and Medusa. I really enjoyed this one, the art was amazing and we even get a few scenes with Circe-witch on it. I love how Wonder Woman is presented to be smart and the sacrifice that she made was very brave. Such a powerful story! Amazing!
<b>‘’Sacrifice: Part four’’ from Wonder Woman #219 (2005)
<i>Scripts: Greg Rucka; Pencils:Rags Morales, David Lopez, Tom Derenick, Georges Jeanty & Karl Kerschl; Inks: Mark Propst, BIT, Dexter Vines, Bob Petrecca & Nelson; Colors: Richard & Tanya Horie; Letters: Todd Klein; Cover: J.G. Jones</i></b>
Superman has been brainwashed and wants to kill Diana. Not much happens apart from Wonder Woman and Superman fighting. I didn’t like this one, only because of one quote that says:
<b><i>‘’You’ll forgive me for saying it, princess, but you look good on your knees…’’</i></b>
<b>‘’A Murder Of Crows: Part Two - Throwdown’’ from Wonder Woman #41 (2010)
<i>Script: Gail Simone; Pencils: Chris Batista & Fernando Dagnino; Inks: Doug Hazlewood & Raul Fernandez; Colors: Brad Anderson; Letters: Travis Lanham; Cover: Aaron Lopresti</i></b>
Even though the beginning features Achilles and Patroclus, after a page or two we don’t see them anymore, and I am standing like… what’s the point in mentioning them in the first place then? This piece of art contains a battle between Power Girl and Wonder Woman, and how Power Girl can never be like Wonder Woman, unless, of course, she has no other choice.
I liked this one, maybe the most, even though the art was just average.
<b>‘’Justice League: Part Three’’ from Justice League #3 (2011)
<i>Script: Geoff Johns; Pencils: Jim Lee; Inks: Scott Williams; Colors: Alex Sinclair, HI-FI & Gabe Ettaeb; Letters: Pat Brosseau; Cover: Jim Lee, Scott Williams & Alex Sinclair</i></b>
This piece of art was different than anything else in this book. We see a lot of famous heroes fight, like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and of course, Wonder Woman. The art is really colourful, which I enjoyed, but the story was confusing. See, it started from the middle of a comic book, and then ended unfinished. It only covered the part where Wonder Woman appears, but it confused me and I didn’t enjoy the story as much. Again, I didn’t like the way how they express themselves to a woman. They see Wonder Woman and they call dibs on her. Really?
<b>‘’Goddown’’ from Wonder Woman #23 (2013)
<i>Script: Brian Azzarello; Art: Cliff Chiang; Colors: Matthew Wilson; Letters: Jared K. Fletcher; Cover: Cliff Chiang </i></b>
A very confusing chapter, and I didn’t enjoy it at all. It was about Hera and her children, and Wonder Woman protecting them. Even though this is the newest made, it didn’t seem like it, and the art seemed old-style.
Overall, I didn’t enjoy it as much, and it wouldn’t be something I’d choose in the future. I’d rather go with a proper beginning-to-end story rather than a compilation next time.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to be honest. I was confused when I first heard that a movie was being made called Tomorrowland, and even more so when I heard it that actually is based on the themed area of Disney parks. How could they do it? What would it be about? It was strange. The teaser trailer didn’t give a whole lot away either (as teasers are designed to do). When I saw the full trailer, I had a little more understanding, and it definitely piqued my interest, but I was still totally in the dark. And I wanted to see the movie! I guess Disney really did their job right.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/