Search
Search results
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated CSB Worldview Study Bible in Books
Nov 4, 2019
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features extensive worldview study notes and articles by notable Christian scholars to help Christians better understand the grand narrative and flow of Scripture within the biblical framework from which we are called to view reality and make sense of life and the world. Guided by general editors David S. Dockery and Trevin K. Wax, this Bible is an invaluable resource and study tool that will help you to discuss, defend, and clearly share with others the truth, hope, and practical compatibility of Christianity in everyday life.
Features include:
Extensive worldview study notes
Over 130 articles by notable Christian scholars
Center-column references
Smyth-sewn binding
Presentation page
Two ribbon markers
Two-piece gift box, and more
General Editors: David S. Dockery and Trevin Wax
Associate Editors: Constantine R. Campbell, E. Ray Clendenen, Eric J. Tully
Contributors include: David S. Dockery, Trevin K. Wax, Ray Van Neste, John Stonestreet, Ted Cabal, Darrell L. Bock, Mary J. Sharp, Carl R. Trueman, Bruce Riley Ashford, R. Albert Mohler Jr., William A. Dembski, Preben Vang, David K. Naugle, Jennifer A. Marshall, Aida Besancon Spencer, Paul Copan, Robert Smith Jr., Douglas Groothuis, Russell D. Moore, Mark A. Noll, Timothy George, Carla D. Sanderson, Kevin Smith, Gregory B. Forster, Choon Sam Fong, and more.
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features the highly readable, highly reliable text of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). The CSB stays as literal as possible to the Bibles original meaning without sacrificing clarity, making it easier to engage with Scriptures life-transforming message and to share it with others.
This is a wonderful Bible that not only gives us God's word but teaches through credible editors about the Christians view of the world. There are articles that show us the Biblical view of that issue; such a: the Biblical view of music, Personal Finances. Ther is an article on how Christians should relate to the government along with various other interesting articles.
This is a great study Bible for new believers, for discipling, for those interested in how God's word relates to issues around us today. How we as Christians should respond to a world that is turning against Christians.
This is a beautiful Bible, that is easy to read and has full-color maps. This will be a great addition to anyone's library.
CSB Worldview Study Bible
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 255 : Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Features include:
Extensive worldview study notes
Over 130 articles by notable Christian scholars
Center-column references
Smyth-sewn binding
Presentation page
Two ribbon markers
Two-piece gift box, and more
General Editors: David S. Dockery and Trevin Wax
Associate Editors: Constantine R. Campbell, E. Ray Clendenen, Eric J. Tully
Contributors include: David S. Dockery, Trevin K. Wax, Ray Van Neste, John Stonestreet, Ted Cabal, Darrell L. Bock, Mary J. Sharp, Carl R. Trueman, Bruce Riley Ashford, R. Albert Mohler Jr., William A. Dembski, Preben Vang, David K. Naugle, Jennifer A. Marshall, Aida Besancon Spencer, Paul Copan, Robert Smith Jr., Douglas Groothuis, Russell D. Moore, Mark A. Noll, Timothy George, Carla D. Sanderson, Kevin Smith, Gregory B. Forster, Choon Sam Fong, and more.
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features the highly readable, highly reliable text of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). The CSB stays as literal as possible to the Bibles original meaning without sacrificing clarity, making it easier to engage with Scriptures life-transforming message and to share it with others.
This is a wonderful Bible that not only gives us God's word but teaches through credible editors about the Christians view of the world. There are articles that show us the Biblical view of that issue; such a: the Biblical view of music, Personal Finances. Ther is an article on how Christians should relate to the government along with various other interesting articles.
This is a great study Bible for new believers, for discipling, for those interested in how God's word relates to issues around us today. How we as Christians should respond to a world that is turning against Christians.
This is a beautiful Bible, that is easy to read and has full-color maps. This will be a great addition to anyone's library.
CSB Worldview Study Bible
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 255 : Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) in Movies
Sep 16, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
25 years after their Bogus Journey, Wylde Stallions are on the verge of splitting up only to be told that they only only have 70 minuets to wright and perform the song that will bring harmony to, not only all of time but reality itself.
Bill & Ted Face the Music is an amalgam of the two previous films that is designed the trilogy or pass it on to the next generation and is split into two narratives. Bill and Ted head to the future to try to find the song, save their marriage and avoid being killed by robot from the future whilst their daughters have their own Excellent Adventure, travelling back in time to put the ultimate band together.
Bill & Ted Face the music tries to replicate the feel of the previous films and, for the most part succeeds, Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter both do well in portraying an ageing Bill & Ted who are trying to live up to their destiny whilst keeping their lives together as well a number of future Bill and Ted's who all have their own agenda and it's nice to many of the original cast back in their original roles, even George Carlin makes a cameo as Rufus (kind of).
New comers to the franchise, Samara Weaving and Brigette Lundy-Paine do a fair job as Thea and Billie, Bill & Teds teenage daughters, both of whom are exactly like their respective farther's but more modern.
The only two complaints I would have is that the robot is very annoying, he's meant to be but it just doesn't seem to work. Also I didn't know who Kid Cudi was (Showing my age and musical tastes here).
Bill & Ted Face the music is great, fun film that is, in essence, a tribute to the enjoyment and power of music, it fails only in the fact that it doesn't really have an effective bad guy, it tries to replicate De Nomolos, or at least his robots from Bogus Journey but, like Excellent Adventure it would have worked (almost) without him as he was really only used for one reason.
Oh and FYI there is an end of credits scene so make sure you sit through to the end.
Bill & Ted Face the Music is an amalgam of the two previous films that is designed the trilogy or pass it on to the next generation and is split into two narratives. Bill and Ted head to the future to try to find the song, save their marriage and avoid being killed by robot from the future whilst their daughters have their own Excellent Adventure, travelling back in time to put the ultimate band together.
Bill & Ted Face the music tries to replicate the feel of the previous films and, for the most part succeeds, Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter both do well in portraying an ageing Bill & Ted who are trying to live up to their destiny whilst keeping their lives together as well a number of future Bill and Ted's who all have their own agenda and it's nice to many of the original cast back in their original roles, even George Carlin makes a cameo as Rufus (kind of).
New comers to the franchise, Samara Weaving and Brigette Lundy-Paine do a fair job as Thea and Billie, Bill & Teds teenage daughters, both of whom are exactly like their respective farther's but more modern.
The only two complaints I would have is that the robot is very annoying, he's meant to be but it just doesn't seem to work. Also I didn't know who Kid Cudi was (Showing my age and musical tastes here).
Bill & Ted Face the music is great, fun film that is, in essence, a tribute to the enjoyment and power of music, it fails only in the fact that it doesn't really have an effective bad guy, it tries to replicate De Nomolos, or at least his robots from Bogus Journey but, like Excellent Adventure it would have worked (almost) without him as he was really only used for one reason.
Oh and FYI there is an end of credits scene so make sure you sit through to the end.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) in Movies
Jan 23, 2021
From Dusk Till Dawn is a good enough Tarantino/Rodriguez style crime caper for the first hour, carried by its cast and polar opposite characters. On one side of the coin, there's the wholesome Fuller family, played by Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis, and Ernest Liu. These characters are the good guys if you will, with just enough development given to be on their team. The other side of the coin serves us the Gecko brothers, played by George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino, two criminals who take the Fullers hostage on their way to Mexico. These two are fucking deplorable, Richie (Tarantino) being a dangerous psychopath with no regard for human life, and Seth (Clooney) just being an arrogant asshat who flits between condemning his brothers behaviour and encouraging it. They're so damn unlikable, but when the five characters are together, it provides us with an electric dynamic, one where they end up depending on eachother to survive.
Other than that, it's good enough. Sure it's stylish, but it's not a scratch on Pulp Fiction or Desperado in what's it's trying to be.
But then the twist kicks in, and Christ does this movie ascend to near greatness. When the Fullers and Geckos arrive in Mexico and head to The Titty Twister bar, shit hits the fan pretty quick, and it goes from good enough crime movie, to all out sticky gross gore filled vampire horror show in seconds. The mix of practical effects and CG is wonderfully balanced, and the aesthetic is hugely reminiscent of Evil Dead II. It's no surprise to see Greg Nicotero among the credits.
This second half is just a whole boat of fun, and is the reason why FDTD is rightly considered a cult classic. Tarantinos screenplay is great (casually ignoring the fact he wrote himself into a scene where he could have Salma Hayeks toes in his mouth) and the addition of actors such as Hayek, Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, Tom Savini, and Fred Williamson for this tongue-in-cheek, splatter fest of a third act is the cherry on top.
From Dusk Till Dawn is a blast for sure. Its stumbles here and there, but is another fine entry in the Robert Rodriguez catalogue.
Other than that, it's good enough. Sure it's stylish, but it's not a scratch on Pulp Fiction or Desperado in what's it's trying to be.
But then the twist kicks in, and Christ does this movie ascend to near greatness. When the Fullers and Geckos arrive in Mexico and head to The Titty Twister bar, shit hits the fan pretty quick, and it goes from good enough crime movie, to all out sticky gross gore filled vampire horror show in seconds. The mix of practical effects and CG is wonderfully balanced, and the aesthetic is hugely reminiscent of Evil Dead II. It's no surprise to see Greg Nicotero among the credits.
This second half is just a whole boat of fun, and is the reason why FDTD is rightly considered a cult classic. Tarantinos screenplay is great (casually ignoring the fact he wrote himself into a scene where he could have Salma Hayeks toes in his mouth) and the addition of actors such as Hayek, Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, Tom Savini, and Fred Williamson for this tongue-in-cheek, splatter fest of a third act is the cherry on top.
From Dusk Till Dawn is a blast for sure. Its stumbles here and there, but is another fine entry in the Robert Rodriguez catalogue.
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.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Aug 9, 2021
Engaging love story (at least, the one in the 60's) (2 more)
Lush production values, especially production design and cinematography
Great cast - especially Shailene Woodley and Ben Cross
A proper old-fashioned love story that older viewers will appreciate.
Is "chick flick" a phrase that you can use these days? I guess not, since it infers that a movie is only of interest to a particular gender. Perhaps "Sunday afternoon film" is a better phrase. And "The Last Letter From Your Lover" is a real SAF.
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
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.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (1983) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
The weakest...
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is often thought of as the weakest of the original trilogy, and whilst I would agree with that, that's not to say that it is bad. The phenomenon which had begun with"Star Wars", six years earlier was about to conclude, or so we thought, with Jedi.
The first film had pioneered the technology and concepts of which to present and achieve such a franchise in the 1970′s and '80′s, and "The Empire Strikes Back" is still the benchmark for part twos, but where this film falls down is that it has sacrificed narrative quality for Lucas' realisation that he could finally do what he wanted, without any hindrance from studios or production limitations.
He had the best of best in visual effects with his Industrial Light and Magic, and he had a vision which had remained unrealised in the previous two films, such as the so called failed Cantina scene in "Star Wars", which is presented here, only this time in the walls of Jabba's palace.
The first half I believe, is George Lucas' real film. Monsters and Muppets, pure fantasy as our heroes wrap up the events of the previous film, and make their daring escape from Jabba the Hutt. The second part is almost a separate film, focusing quite rightly on the Empire and the destruction of the second Death Star. But this plot is very matter of fact, and has no real charm or heart, just epic visuals and a theatrical sense.
Meanwhile, Han Solo and Princess Leia are leading a rebel assault on the forest moon of Endor, populated by the most annoying Muppets of all the dreaded Ewoks! The Ewoks must be one of cinema's greatest misjudgments, the first real misstep in Lucas' handling of the "Star Wars Saga"; but with the prequels and the constant tinkering with the originals, this was to be the thin end of the wedge.
Don't get me wrong, there are plot elements revolving around the Muppets which I liked, such as the nature vs. technology metaphor, but that doesn't excuse the Ewoks and nothing ever will! But elements such as the Speedbike chase and the final battle, all of it, the final Vader/Luke dual, the assault of the Death Star itself, and even the ludicrous Ewok assault, are excellent, visually stunning and exiting and it is enough to save this film from being bogged down by the bad.
And like I said, the money grabbing, almost narratively illiterate George Lucas has damaged and defamed his franchise with his constant tinkering, firstly with the Special Edition in 1997, and then with his Enhanced Special Edition in 2004 for the DVD release.
Lucas is a visionary and has done so much for the film industry and we should be grateful but in the end, he needs to stop milking this franchise, stop pretending that it is never finished, when he has finished it THREE times now and realise that the best of the original trilogy was directed and written by other people, all of which display more talent. Lucas is not a good director but he is a good producer and he has brought this franchise to the screen and the movie industry is better for it. But the Special Editions bring nothing important to the mix, with the exception of the finale, which does carry more scope that 1983 original.
Overall, the weakest of the "Star Wars Trilogy" is a fair assessment and at its worst, it's still leagues above any entry in the prequels, even the Episode III, which is the closest to this high standards of this series.
The first film had pioneered the technology and concepts of which to present and achieve such a franchise in the 1970′s and '80′s, and "The Empire Strikes Back" is still the benchmark for part twos, but where this film falls down is that it has sacrificed narrative quality for Lucas' realisation that he could finally do what he wanted, without any hindrance from studios or production limitations.
He had the best of best in visual effects with his Industrial Light and Magic, and he had a vision which had remained unrealised in the previous two films, such as the so called failed Cantina scene in "Star Wars", which is presented here, only this time in the walls of Jabba's palace.
The first half I believe, is George Lucas' real film. Monsters and Muppets, pure fantasy as our heroes wrap up the events of the previous film, and make their daring escape from Jabba the Hutt. The second part is almost a separate film, focusing quite rightly on the Empire and the destruction of the second Death Star. But this plot is very matter of fact, and has no real charm or heart, just epic visuals and a theatrical sense.
Meanwhile, Han Solo and Princess Leia are leading a rebel assault on the forest moon of Endor, populated by the most annoying Muppets of all the dreaded Ewoks! The Ewoks must be one of cinema's greatest misjudgments, the first real misstep in Lucas' handling of the "Star Wars Saga"; but with the prequels and the constant tinkering with the originals, this was to be the thin end of the wedge.
Don't get me wrong, there are plot elements revolving around the Muppets which I liked, such as the nature vs. technology metaphor, but that doesn't excuse the Ewoks and nothing ever will! But elements such as the Speedbike chase and the final battle, all of it, the final Vader/Luke dual, the assault of the Death Star itself, and even the ludicrous Ewok assault, are excellent, visually stunning and exiting and it is enough to save this film from being bogged down by the bad.
And like I said, the money grabbing, almost narratively illiterate George Lucas has damaged and defamed his franchise with his constant tinkering, firstly with the Special Edition in 1997, and then with his Enhanced Special Edition in 2004 for the DVD release.
Lucas is a visionary and has done so much for the film industry and we should be grateful but in the end, he needs to stop milking this franchise, stop pretending that it is never finished, when he has finished it THREE times now and realise that the best of the original trilogy was directed and written by other people, all of which display more talent. Lucas is not a good director but he is a good producer and he has brought this franchise to the screen and the movie industry is better for it. But the Special Editions bring nothing important to the mix, with the exception of the finale, which does carry more scope that 1983 original.
Overall, the weakest of the "Star Wars Trilogy" is a fair assessment and at its worst, it's still leagues above any entry in the prequels, even the Episode III, which is the closest to this high standards of this series.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Predictable and cliched
The Midnight Sky is a science fiction film directed by George Clooney, the latest in a long line of Netflix originals to hit our screens, based on the 2016 book ‘Good Morning, Midnight’ by Lily Brooks-Dalton. George Clooney plays Augustine, who encounters young girl Iris (the adorable Caoilinn Springall) after remaining on earth following a global apocalypse. Together they must travel across the Arctic to reach a weather station that will allow them to warn returning spaceship, the Aether, captained by Adewole (David Oyelowo) and crewed by Sully (Felicity Jones), Mitchell (Kyle Chandler), Sanchez (Demián Bichir) and Maya (Tiffany Boone).
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.