Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Screaming Staircase: Lockwood & Co. #1 in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest</i>
Fantasy author Jonathan Stroud is widely known for the <i>Bartimaeus</i> trilogy, a children’s series about magicians, however none of his other works seem to be much talked about. This includes his latest paranormal series <i>Lockwood & Co</i>. It is about time that the world became aware of this clever, exciting adventure.
<i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is the first of four books set in a version of London that has suddenly become plagued by ghosts of the past. It is unclear why the dead have come back to haunt the living, but something must be done about them. Unfortunately adults are unable to see these ghastly phantoms and rely on trained psychic investigators, i.e. children, to dispatch the dead.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is comprised of three young teenagers with the ability to hunt and destroy these eerie Visitors: Anthony Lockwood, Lucy Carlyle and their friend George. Unfortunately, despite having the right skills, something always seems to go wrong on their jobs. So, when a prestigious gentleman offers them a very dangerous task, they jump at the chance to prove themselves a competent agency, if not one of the best. Conversely, they find themselves in a lot more trouble than they bargained for.
Although there is a central plot, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is made up of several events that combine to create a mind-blowing conclusion. But it is not solely the ghost fighting, heart stopping scenes that make this story a success. Even without the sinister setting this series would be enjoyable due to the hilarious three main characters. Not once are the ages of Lockwood, Lucy and George mentioned, however it can be presumed that are around thirteen years old. Their relationship takes on a form similar to a brotherly, sisterly bond complete with bickering, threats and sharp, witty comebacks. Despite the dangerous atmosphere there is always the opportunity for at least one of the characters to get in a quick insult that is bound to make the reader laugh out loud.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is primarily targeted at readers between the ages of ten and fifteen, although there is nothing to prevent anyone else from enjoying it too. Thankfully no romantic relationships are formed, leaving Lucy to become as independent and strong as the boys, thus making this a suitable series for both genders. While there is a lot of humour, there is mild horror too, so perhaps young children should wait until they are a bit older to join in with the entertainment this series provides.
When I was younger I attempted to read the <i>Bartemaeus</i> trilogy and found it rather dull, so I was not expecting all that much with this series. However, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> was fantastic in comparison. It is fast paced, amusing, thrilling, and never a boring moment. I guarantee once you’ve read this book you will immediately want to read the sequel. <i>Lockwood & Co</i> is a series that definitely needs more attention that it is getting.
Fantasy author Jonathan Stroud is widely known for the <i>Bartimaeus</i> trilogy, a children’s series about magicians, however none of his other works seem to be much talked about. This includes his latest paranormal series <i>Lockwood & Co</i>. It is about time that the world became aware of this clever, exciting adventure.
<i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is the first of four books set in a version of London that has suddenly become plagued by ghosts of the past. It is unclear why the dead have come back to haunt the living, but something must be done about them. Unfortunately adults are unable to see these ghastly phantoms and rely on trained psychic investigators, i.e. children, to dispatch the dead.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is comprised of three young teenagers with the ability to hunt and destroy these eerie Visitors: Anthony Lockwood, Lucy Carlyle and their friend George. Unfortunately, despite having the right skills, something always seems to go wrong on their jobs. So, when a prestigious gentleman offers them a very dangerous task, they jump at the chance to prove themselves a competent agency, if not one of the best. Conversely, they find themselves in a lot more trouble than they bargained for.
Although there is a central plot, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is made up of several events that combine to create a mind-blowing conclusion. But it is not solely the ghost fighting, heart stopping scenes that make this story a success. Even without the sinister setting this series would be enjoyable due to the hilarious three main characters. Not once are the ages of Lockwood, Lucy and George mentioned, however it can be presumed that are around thirteen years old. Their relationship takes on a form similar to a brotherly, sisterly bond complete with bickering, threats and sharp, witty comebacks. Despite the dangerous atmosphere there is always the opportunity for at least one of the characters to get in a quick insult that is bound to make the reader laugh out loud.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is primarily targeted at readers between the ages of ten and fifteen, although there is nothing to prevent anyone else from enjoying it too. Thankfully no romantic relationships are formed, leaving Lucy to become as independent and strong as the boys, thus making this a suitable series for both genders. While there is a lot of humour, there is mild horror too, so perhaps young children should wait until they are a bit older to join in with the entertainment this series provides.
When I was younger I attempted to read the <i>Bartemaeus</i> trilogy and found it rather dull, so I was not expecting all that much with this series. However, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> was fantastic in comparison. It is fast paced, amusing, thrilling, and never a boring moment. I guarantee once you’ve read this book you will immediately want to read the sequel. <i>Lockwood & Co</i> is a series that definitely needs more attention that it is getting.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Valentine's Day (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Ashton Kutcher has put down his pranks and camera to return to the big screen leading in this star packed Los Angeles romantic comedy. This feature ties together stories of love, truth, and romance, all taking place within the span of a single Valentine’s Day. The film considers relationships from multiple angles and does a fantastic job intertwining individual stories into a single plotline. Yet before preparing for another “Love Actually” let it be know that the tone of “Valentine’s Day” is entirely its own.
As previously mentioned the cast is comprised of film and television stars including but not limited to Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Hector Elizondo, Queen Latifah and not one but two Jessicas (Biel and Alba). As if that were not enough to drawn in big numbers at the box office, “Valentine’s Day” also stars Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx, as well as the Mc-actors from Grey’s Anatomy (Patrick Dempsey and Eric Dane). Still not convinced? Then add in Shirley MacLaine, George Lopez and both Taylors (Swift and Lautner) and you’ve got yourself a guaranteed hit, but does the film actually utilize this outstandingly one of a kind cast? Actually it does.
The film is unexpectedly scattered with all the ups and downs of Valentine’s Day from pink and red color schemes to an anti-Valentine’s piñata beat down. All of the scenes are either engaging and honest or delightful and light covering romantic scenarios that truly run the gauntlet. Seriously where else are you going to see Julia Roberts in fatigues and Anne Hathaway as an adult phone entertainer?
I honestly wish there was more to gripe about considering that this film is just a fun romantic comedy, but “Valentine’s Day” is fresh and enjoyable for every minute of the film. Much funnier than I ‘d expected and not insultingly mushy, Valentine’s Day is a perfect date movie which will be a surprise hit even for those romance cynics.
As previously mentioned the cast is comprised of film and television stars including but not limited to Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Hector Elizondo, Queen Latifah and not one but two Jessicas (Biel and Alba). As if that were not enough to drawn in big numbers at the box office, “Valentine’s Day” also stars Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx, as well as the Mc-actors from Grey’s Anatomy (Patrick Dempsey and Eric Dane). Still not convinced? Then add in Shirley MacLaine, George Lopez and both Taylors (Swift and Lautner) and you’ve got yourself a guaranteed hit, but does the film actually utilize this outstandingly one of a kind cast? Actually it does.
The film is unexpectedly scattered with all the ups and downs of Valentine’s Day from pink and red color schemes to an anti-Valentine’s piñata beat down. All of the scenes are either engaging and honest or delightful and light covering romantic scenarios that truly run the gauntlet. Seriously where else are you going to see Julia Roberts in fatigues and Anne Hathaway as an adult phone entertainer?
I honestly wish there was more to gripe about considering that this film is just a fun romantic comedy, but “Valentine’s Day” is fresh and enjoyable for every minute of the film. Much funnier than I ‘d expected and not insultingly mushy, Valentine’s Day is a perfect date movie which will be a surprise hit even for those romance cynics.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Nov 29, 2019 (Updated Dec 20, 2019)
The final chapter of the Star Wars prequel trilogy is definitely the high point (which isn't the highest praise...) throwing a large amount of sci-fi action at the audience, whilst bring the Star Wars narrative full circle and finally tying into the first film.
The action is over gratuitous at times, but it's still entertaining enough - the opening space battle, the climatic battle between Jedis, the harrowing Order 66 scene.
The special effects here are noticably improved from Episodes I and II, and once again, the various locations and landscapes that we're shown are stunning to look at (Kashyyyk is a good example).
The most important character arc here is of course Anakin's, as he completes his turn to the dark side and steps further towards the iconic Darth Vader. I much prefer Hayden Christensen this time around, although he's still wooden in parts - I get the feeling that he's trying his best, but George Lucas isn't giving a whole lot for him to work with.
Ewan McGregor is great once again as Obi Wan.
The biggest new character we're introduced to in ROTS is General Grievous, who's ok I guess - he's nothing more than a CGI model designed to sell merchandise, but then again, who doesn't want to see someone wield four lightsabers at once ey?
The dialogue is just about more bearable than in the other two prequel films, and the movie has a general sense of 'getting shit done' than before, and it's all the better for it and has some dark turns here and there.
There are some cringey bits of course - the unessecary Chewbacca line for one, and of course, the god awful 'NOOOOOOO' line near the end (literal sick in my mouth)
When looking back on the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, it's easy to cast them aside and say they're no good, when in reality, that's not wholly true. They have they're moments and will always be something that I'll (maybe) watch when they're on TV...
The action is over gratuitous at times, but it's still entertaining enough - the opening space battle, the climatic battle between Jedis, the harrowing Order 66 scene.
The special effects here are noticably improved from Episodes I and II, and once again, the various locations and landscapes that we're shown are stunning to look at (Kashyyyk is a good example).
The most important character arc here is of course Anakin's, as he completes his turn to the dark side and steps further towards the iconic Darth Vader. I much prefer Hayden Christensen this time around, although he's still wooden in parts - I get the feeling that he's trying his best, but George Lucas isn't giving a whole lot for him to work with.
Ewan McGregor is great once again as Obi Wan.
The biggest new character we're introduced to in ROTS is General Grievous, who's ok I guess - he's nothing more than a CGI model designed to sell merchandise, but then again, who doesn't want to see someone wield four lightsabers at once ey?
The dialogue is just about more bearable than in the other two prequel films, and the movie has a general sense of 'getting shit done' than before, and it's all the better for it and has some dark turns here and there.
There are some cringey bits of course - the unessecary Chewbacca line for one, and of course, the god awful 'NOOOOOOO' line near the end (literal sick in my mouth)
When looking back on the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, it's easy to cast them aside and say they're no good, when in reality, that's not wholly true. They have they're moments and will always be something that I'll (maybe) watch when they're on TV...
JT (287 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Brilliant cinematography (2 more)
Great score
Fantastic central characters
A stunning film which hits hard both physically and emotionally
particular emphasis on cinematography. The World War I film is made to look like one continuous shot by director Sam Mendes whose one-shot opening of Spectre gave us a taste of things to come.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Money Monster (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Growing up, whenever a political or economic scandal was featured on the news, my father would utter the words, “Follow the money.” This phrase was made famous by “Deep Throat” during the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down the Nixon Administration. In the film Money Monster which stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts, this is a question that we start to ask ourselves as a financial investment show is taken captive by a disgruntled investor while it is airing live.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2018) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Oct 26, 2020)
This Re-Imagining A Romero Classic Fails To Rise Above Average
Contains spoilers, click to show
Even copying or borrowing from George A. Romero's unique concept couldn't make this film better than an average zombie film. I was excited to see their interpretation of the smarter or more capable than average zombie in this movie and their origin story for him was quite unique and interesting. He was an obsessive stalker and attempted rapist whose body has a high amounts of antibodies. Five years after the main character Zoe escapes Whittendale University she gets the military to go back for medical supplies and Max is still there except a zombie but more. He finds her and sneaks back to their base "Cape Fear" style and then sneaks into the base. I found that a little unbelievable that he was able to sneak onto and into the base so easily but also kind of believable since it's been 5 years without any incidents as far as the audience knows. I also think that the movie was kind of inconsistent with what he's able to do or how much he can reason. He's smart enough to sneak into the base, and through vents but gets caught when he attacks Zoe and is captured. They order her to come up with a vaccine in 48 hours or Max will be killed regardless but then don't put an armed guard to watch over him. That was also a little to convenient to me. He manages to steal the handcuff keys form a soldier during a scuffle too which I thought was rather brilliant. Some good stuff in this movie but some stuff I thought could have been better done or different. As I mentioned some of the actors could have done a better job or the dialogue, story wasn't that original but overall a decent average zombie movie. Worth watching if your looking for a zombie movie to watch but nothing to wow you out of your seat. I give this movie a 5/10.
https://youtu.be/KTtNIIL3NXw
https://youtu.be/KTtNIIL3NXw
What scares you the most? Ghouls, vampires, slime-fanged aliens ...or something terrible that truly could happen? For me it's definitely the latter.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
Cracking British all star cast (1 more)
Reminds you just how crazy politics was in 2003
The best little UK film you've never seen
A film about whistle-blowing against the backdrop of the Iraq War of 2003 doesn't sound like a very appealing watch, but "Official Secrets" defies all those fears. It's a cracking little UK movie.
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?