Search
Search results
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.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Witchwood Crown in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Gosh, what a long book!
Review I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Approximately 30 years ago, the first novel in Tad Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy was published. Fans all over the world adored this high fantasy story about a young kitchen boy, Simon, who goes on to become King of Ostern Ard. Now Williams’ has returned to the fictional lands with a follow-up trilogy, The Last King of Ostern Ard.
Three decades have been and gone since the ending of the previous series. The Witchwood Crown explores the changes that have occurred since the epic story finished, unfortunately, things are not looking good. Simon and his wife, Miriamele, have suffered a few personal tragedies, leaving them with two fatherless grandchildren. Young Lillia is an out spoken child who expostulates with everyone in order to get her way – she is a princess after all. Morgan, the heir, is rather obtuse in comparison; a lazy young man whose vexatious behaviour constantly causes the Royals to despair. However, this is only a tiny problem in their restless kingdom.
The Norn Queen, an antagonist of the original story, has been asleep for the past few decades. Mortals foolishly believed they were safe from the evil character, yet unexpectedly, she has awoken and is determined to destroy humanity. Too weak to carry out her own plans, she infiltrates the minds of the members of her immortal race, sending them off on perilous missions, for example, to extract blood from a live dragon.
As well as Simon’s city and the Norns, there are several more important characters and locations, each with their own on going storyline. A mix of assiduous and animus personas shake up the peace that had settled at the closing of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. It is almost impossible to fathom whom the good and bad are, especially when reading from so many different points of view.
If the 700 odd pages did not already give it away, the inclusion of maps and appendixes prove the book to contain an extremely lengthy tale. Flitting from one set of characters to another, it is hard to keep up with the hundreds of names and roles. It does not help that the majority are unpronounceable, full of additional apostrophes making them as unlike English names as possible – a usual trait of fantasy fiction.
Not only are the names difficult to pronounce, the words and vernacular some of the characters use are just as dumbfounding. Thankfully, definitions are provided at the back of the book, but to keep flipping between pages can get quite tedious after a while.
The sheer number of characters makes it difficult to unearth the main storyline. In fact, there does not appear to be a strong plot at all. Judging by the ending, it is as though The Witchwood Crown is only an introduction to the narrative that will begin in the following book.
Reading the primary series first will have its benefits, however, it is not mandatory. New readers, like myself, are able to pick up snippets of past events and piece together the lead up to the current scenario. Although a work of historical fantasy, it is possible to see elements of real life within the story. Dragons and fairies may not exist in our world, but similar beliefs and systems are relatable. For instance, the days of the week are obviously based on the English names: Sunday, Moonday, Tiasday, Udunsday, Drorsday, Frayday and Satrinsday.
The most striking connection between real and imagined is the religious beliefs of different clans and species. Many of the mortals have taken, up what is suggested to be, a new religion. There are so many similarities; it is undoubtedly based on Christianity. Likewise, other beliefs are comparable to pagan rites and ceremonies of the distant past.
The Witchwood Crown is not an easy book to read, neither is it all that exciting. On the other hand, it is interesting. It is equivalent to reading historical information with the added benefit of mythical creatures. This is not a quick read; therefore you need to be dedicated to sitting down and pacing through the story. It is definitely targeted at high fantasy fans – in fact, the original stories influenced George R. R. Martin (A Game of Thrones) – who are used to the length and complexity of the narrative
Approximately 30 years ago, the first novel in Tad Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy was published. Fans all over the world adored this high fantasy story about a young kitchen boy, Simon, who goes on to become King of Ostern Ard. Now Williams’ has returned to the fictional lands with a follow-up trilogy, The Last King of Ostern Ard.
Three decades have been and gone since the ending of the previous series. The Witchwood Crown explores the changes that have occurred since the epic story finished, unfortunately, things are not looking good. Simon and his wife, Miriamele, have suffered a few personal tragedies, leaving them with two fatherless grandchildren. Young Lillia is an out spoken child who expostulates with everyone in order to get her way – she is a princess after all. Morgan, the heir, is rather obtuse in comparison; a lazy young man whose vexatious behaviour constantly causes the Royals to despair. However, this is only a tiny problem in their restless kingdom.
The Norn Queen, an antagonist of the original story, has been asleep for the past few decades. Mortals foolishly believed they were safe from the evil character, yet unexpectedly, she has awoken and is determined to destroy humanity. Too weak to carry out her own plans, she infiltrates the minds of the members of her immortal race, sending them off on perilous missions, for example, to extract blood from a live dragon.
As well as Simon’s city and the Norns, there are several more important characters and locations, each with their own on going storyline. A mix of assiduous and animus personas shake up the peace that had settled at the closing of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. It is almost impossible to fathom whom the good and bad are, especially when reading from so many different points of view.
If the 700 odd pages did not already give it away, the inclusion of maps and appendixes prove the book to contain an extremely lengthy tale. Flitting from one set of characters to another, it is hard to keep up with the hundreds of names and roles. It does not help that the majority are unpronounceable, full of additional apostrophes making them as unlike English names as possible – a usual trait of fantasy fiction.
Not only are the names difficult to pronounce, the words and vernacular some of the characters use are just as dumbfounding. Thankfully, definitions are provided at the back of the book, but to keep flipping between pages can get quite tedious after a while.
The sheer number of characters makes it difficult to unearth the main storyline. In fact, there does not appear to be a strong plot at all. Judging by the ending, it is as though The Witchwood Crown is only an introduction to the narrative that will begin in the following book.
Reading the primary series first will have its benefits, however, it is not mandatory. New readers, like myself, are able to pick up snippets of past events and piece together the lead up to the current scenario. Although a work of historical fantasy, it is possible to see elements of real life within the story. Dragons and fairies may not exist in our world, but similar beliefs and systems are relatable. For instance, the days of the week are obviously based on the English names: Sunday, Moonday, Tiasday, Udunsday, Drorsday, Frayday and Satrinsday.
The most striking connection between real and imagined is the religious beliefs of different clans and species. Many of the mortals have taken, up what is suggested to be, a new religion. There are so many similarities; it is undoubtedly based on Christianity. Likewise, other beliefs are comparable to pagan rites and ceremonies of the distant past.
The Witchwood Crown is not an easy book to read, neither is it all that exciting. On the other hand, it is interesting. It is equivalent to reading historical information with the added benefit of mythical creatures. This is not a quick read; therefore you need to be dedicated to sitting down and pacing through the story. It is definitely targeted at high fantasy fans – in fact, the original stories influenced George R. R. Martin (A Game of Thrones) – who are used to the length and complexity of the narrative
Becs (244 KP) rated Monster Catchers in Books
Jul 6, 2019
Captivating middle grade novel!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Janeeny (200 KP) rated Persuasion in Books
Jun 10, 2019
I’m always a little dubious about certain ‘Classics’. Give me a Charles Dickens or an HG Wells any day of the week and I’m happy. I become a little more dubious around what I call ‘society’ classics, like George Elliot and Jane Austen. It all stems from the time I read Middlemarch and found it to be a 900 page soap opera where NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS!! Although so far I have never been disappointed by a Jane Austen novel, when I have to read a book that essentially revolves around social customs and classes I break out in a cold sweat! .
So I was a little apprehensive when my recommended book for the month from my Penguin Reading challenge was 'Persuasion', but at 249 pages I thought I’d just crack on and get it over with.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Persuasion is about a young woman named Anne Elliot who, previous to the beginning of the story, was betrothed to Naval Officer Frederick Wentworth, but broke it off after being 'persuaded' (see what they did there!) by her family and a close friend that the match was beneath her. It is seven years later and Anne discovers that Wentworth has returned and is, lamentably, involved in her social circle. What follows is a deep exploration of Anne's feelings, thoughts and regrets on the decision she made 7 years ago, and the circumstances that may allow her to make amends.
As I said before I haven’t been disappointed by a Jane Austen novel yet, and this one was no exception. It is essentially a ‘will they wont they’ story that does keep you guessing until the end. Whilst it is a basic storyline it is laced with little dramas that keep you engaged but do not overshadow the main story.
In the introduction in my book it says that Jane Austen once described Anne Elliot as “almost too good for me” I can understand what she means as Anne is a very self-effacing heroin. She puts others thoughts and needs before her own and has an equitable view of the world. Unfortunately in my eyes this does make her far too pliant, and whilst this aspect of her does lend to the back story of why she never married Wentworth seven years ago, when she is insulted and exploited by her family I did find myself wishing she had a little more gumption.
Aside from that I found it a very pleasant societal love story.
So I was a little apprehensive when my recommended book for the month from my Penguin Reading challenge was 'Persuasion', but at 249 pages I thought I’d just crack on and get it over with.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Persuasion is about a young woman named Anne Elliot who, previous to the beginning of the story, was betrothed to Naval Officer Frederick Wentworth, but broke it off after being 'persuaded' (see what they did there!) by her family and a close friend that the match was beneath her. It is seven years later and Anne discovers that Wentworth has returned and is, lamentably, involved in her social circle. What follows is a deep exploration of Anne's feelings, thoughts and regrets on the decision she made 7 years ago, and the circumstances that may allow her to make amends.
As I said before I haven’t been disappointed by a Jane Austen novel yet, and this one was no exception. It is essentially a ‘will they wont they’ story that does keep you guessing until the end. Whilst it is a basic storyline it is laced with little dramas that keep you engaged but do not overshadow the main story.
In the introduction in my book it says that Jane Austen once described Anne Elliot as “almost too good for me” I can understand what she means as Anne is a very self-effacing heroin. She puts others thoughts and needs before her own and has an equitable view of the world. Unfortunately in my eyes this does make her far too pliant, and whilst this aspect of her does lend to the back story of why she never married Wentworth seven years ago, when she is insulted and exploited by her family I did find myself wishing she had a little more gumption.
Aside from that I found it a very pleasant societal love story.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.