Search
Search results
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Geek's Guide to Unrequited Love in Books
Jun 4, 2019
The title of this book had me wary from the start, but I'd heard good things about it, and the author is a woman, so I hoped it wouldn't be what it sounded like. Because seriously. We don't need more books about angsty white guys complaining about the girl they love not liking them back.
Unfortunately that's exactly what I got in this book.
First, the good points. The author has a very immersive writing style, and she captured the feeling of a Comic Con VERY impressively. I haven't been to NYCC, but I've been to other nerdy cons, and the hectic pace of panels, and getting tickets, and standing in lines, but nerding out over ALL THE GEEKY STUFF - yeah, that was perfectly written. I really enjoyed that. The other characters - Casey and Felicia, specifically, and Samira, and the rest of Roxy and Graham's families - those were also well done. The brief scene with Roxy's Iranian family was especially nice, which is to be expected from an Iranian-American author!
But Graham irritated me. Roxy wasn't well explored because we only saw things from Graham's point of view, and her love interest Devin's appeal wasn't shown very well at ALL.
I spent most of the book wanting to yell at Graham to just TALK TO HER ALREADY. He's all miffed that his plans aren't going right and the obnoxious Brit is stealing his girl but he won't. Just. TALK. To her.
I think the only reason I actually finished the book was because it was short. And for the description of Comic Con, that was actually really good. But the main character was just frustrating. I should have spent this time on another book.You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Unfortunately that's exactly what I got in this book.
First, the good points. The author has a very immersive writing style, and she captured the feeling of a Comic Con VERY impressively. I haven't been to NYCC, but I've been to other nerdy cons, and the hectic pace of panels, and getting tickets, and standing in lines, but nerding out over ALL THE GEEKY STUFF - yeah, that was perfectly written. I really enjoyed that. The other characters - Casey and Felicia, specifically, and Samira, and the rest of Roxy and Graham's families - those were also well done. The brief scene with Roxy's Iranian family was especially nice, which is to be expected from an Iranian-American author!
But Graham irritated me. Roxy wasn't well explored because we only saw things from Graham's point of view, and her love interest Devin's appeal wasn't shown very well at ALL.
I spent most of the book wanting to yell at Graham to just TALK TO HER ALREADY. He's all miffed that his plans aren't going right and the obnoxious Brit is stealing his girl but he won't. Just. TALK. To her.
I think the only reason I actually finished the book was because it was short. And for the description of Comic Con, that was actually really good. But the main character was just frustrating. I should have spent this time on another book.You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Darren (1599 KP) rated This Is England (2007) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019
Verdict: Gritty, Hard Hitting Reality Check
Story: This is England starts as young boy Shaun (Turgoose) is struggling with the death of his father in conflict in 1983, he gets picked on at school, he doesn’t fit in, until a group of skinheads led by Woody (Gilgun) welcoming him into their circle of friends for an afternoon of trouble, while his mother Cynth (Hartley) isn’t completely happy with this group, she does see him being happy for the first time in years.
When the other leader of the group Combo (Graham) gets out of prisons, he brings a more aggressive nature to what the gang wants to be, despite Woody, just wanting it to be friends hanging out.
Thoughts on This is England
Characters – Shaun is a 12-year-old boy that has suffered with the loss of his own father’s death in the Falklands, he gets bullied by the other school kids and has always just been left feeling alone in the world. The only people that let him in are Woody and the gang of skin heads who just want to hang out and soon gets drawn into a darker side by the more aggressive leaders of the gang. Combo is the older leader of the gang that doesn’t hold back with his hatred to other races in his country, he will fight anybody who goes again his gang too, being a horrendous role model for Shaun. Cynth is the mother of Shaun, she wants to see her son enjoying his life more but is getting worried about his own life choices. Woody is the member of the skin head gang that invites Shaun into the gang, he wants to help him fight back against the bullies, by offering somebody to hang out with.
Performances – Thomas Turgoose in the leading role is fantastic as we see just how he is dealing with his own grief in all the wrong places. Stephen Graham steals the show with his hyper aggressive character, while the rest of the cast do make us feel like we are watching mates hanging out.
Story – The story here follows a 12-year-old boy that ends up joining a skinhead gang after he struggles to find a way to deal with the grief in his life from his father’s death. The story does tackle just how difficult grief could be for the children of the victims of war, with Shaun having his school friends pick on him because of his father’s death, which in todays, not the 80s wouldn’t be acceptable in anyway, with everybody being more supportive. The idea of joining the gang and just how the gang soon starts to consume his life, effecting his behaviour shows how being given the wrong lines to follow will not make life any easier. We do see how the world has changed since the 80s and how the skinhead culture should never be forced onto anybody.
Crime – The crime world we get placed into here it, involves the violent behaviour of the skinhead gangs to anybody that doesn’t fit into their profile.
Settings – The film is set in the midlands of the UK which does show the neighbours that would have been struggling in the 1980s.
Scene of the Movie – The first day out with the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – 12-year-old dating an 18-year-old seems weird.
Final Thoughts – This film does show the violence being pushed onto people if they can’t deal with grief when they have nobody else in their lives.
Overall: Violent Drama.
Story: This is England starts as young boy Shaun (Turgoose) is struggling with the death of his father in conflict in 1983, he gets picked on at school, he doesn’t fit in, until a group of skinheads led by Woody (Gilgun) welcoming him into their circle of friends for an afternoon of trouble, while his mother Cynth (Hartley) isn’t completely happy with this group, she does see him being happy for the first time in years.
When the other leader of the group Combo (Graham) gets out of prisons, he brings a more aggressive nature to what the gang wants to be, despite Woody, just wanting it to be friends hanging out.
Thoughts on This is England
Characters – Shaun is a 12-year-old boy that has suffered with the loss of his own father’s death in the Falklands, he gets bullied by the other school kids and has always just been left feeling alone in the world. The only people that let him in are Woody and the gang of skin heads who just want to hang out and soon gets drawn into a darker side by the more aggressive leaders of the gang. Combo is the older leader of the gang that doesn’t hold back with his hatred to other races in his country, he will fight anybody who goes again his gang too, being a horrendous role model for Shaun. Cynth is the mother of Shaun, she wants to see her son enjoying his life more but is getting worried about his own life choices. Woody is the member of the skin head gang that invites Shaun into the gang, he wants to help him fight back against the bullies, by offering somebody to hang out with.
Performances – Thomas Turgoose in the leading role is fantastic as we see just how he is dealing with his own grief in all the wrong places. Stephen Graham steals the show with his hyper aggressive character, while the rest of the cast do make us feel like we are watching mates hanging out.
Story – The story here follows a 12-year-old boy that ends up joining a skinhead gang after he struggles to find a way to deal with the grief in his life from his father’s death. The story does tackle just how difficult grief could be for the children of the victims of war, with Shaun having his school friends pick on him because of his father’s death, which in todays, not the 80s wouldn’t be acceptable in anyway, with everybody being more supportive. The idea of joining the gang and just how the gang soon starts to consume his life, effecting his behaviour shows how being given the wrong lines to follow will not make life any easier. We do see how the world has changed since the 80s and how the skinhead culture should never be forced onto anybody.
Crime – The crime world we get placed into here it, involves the violent behaviour of the skinhead gangs to anybody that doesn’t fit into their profile.
Settings – The film is set in the midlands of the UK which does show the neighbours that would have been struggling in the 1980s.
Scene of the Movie – The first day out with the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – 12-year-old dating an 18-year-old seems weird.
Final Thoughts – This film does show the violence being pushed onto people if they can’t deal with grief when they have nobody else in their lives.
Overall: Violent Drama.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Line of Duty - Season 5 in TV
May 18, 2019
Gripping and thrilling
What can I say, Line of Duty have done it again with another hugely gripping series with twists, turns and a stellar cast. Again I won’t say too much at the risk of giving away any spoilers, but this series continues the investigation into the mysterious ‘H’ and they really do pack a lot of intrigue and twists and turns. It’s good to see the wonderful Stephen Graham in this, I couldn’t imagine anyone else more fitting for the role of Clayton and it’s also good to see a bit more of Adrian Dunbar who has been slightly sidelined in past series in favour of the characters of Arnott and Fleming. The plot itself is action packed with a lot of twists you just wouldn’t see coming. Of course unsurprisingly the series ends with a bit of a bang but also doesn’t quite wrap everything up neatly, leaving me screaming for another that I’ll now have to wait for. Damn you BBC.
My only criticism about this show, other than the fact that some plot lines have been left hanging until the ends series, is a bit of a back handed compliment. From working in a police environment I cannot stress to you how realistic a lot of aspects of this show are. Yes they’ve obviously made the storylines thrilling and action packed and made up, but the little nuances and parts of daily ordinary police life are very realistic. Whilst I really love they’ve made it this realistic, there’s one part I find very irritating and that’s mainly because it annoys me on a daily basis at work. I can’t stand the dated way police officers refer to those of a higher rank as ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am’, it seems very outdated in a world where we’re all meant to be equal, except when you’re a higher police rank then you can’t be called by your first name by a lower rank... Doesn’t seem right to me, and you certainly wouldn’t catch me doing that at work - calling someone by name doesn’t mean you don’t respect their position any less. So I do get a little irritated with this hierarchical nonsense sometimes on the show, especially with Kate and Steve. But very realistic to say the least! Rant over ?
My only criticism about this show, other than the fact that some plot lines have been left hanging until the ends series, is a bit of a back handed compliment. From working in a police environment I cannot stress to you how realistic a lot of aspects of this show are. Yes they’ve obviously made the storylines thrilling and action packed and made up, but the little nuances and parts of daily ordinary police life are very realistic. Whilst I really love they’ve made it this realistic, there’s one part I find very irritating and that’s mainly because it annoys me on a daily basis at work. I can’t stand the dated way police officers refer to those of a higher rank as ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am’, it seems very outdated in a world where we’re all meant to be equal, except when you’re a higher police rank then you can’t be called by your first name by a lower rank... Doesn’t seem right to me, and you certainly wouldn’t catch me doing that at work - calling someone by name doesn’t mean you don’t respect their position any less. So I do get a little irritated with this hierarchical nonsense sometimes on the show, especially with Kate and Steve. But very realistic to say the least! Rant over ?
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
You can’t get on the internet these days without a political controversy smacking you right in the face. You also can’t help but notice the timing of this historical thriller directed by Steven Spielberg. Using the past’s political agenda to reaffirm the resistance we are facing today. The Post takes place in the deep thrones of the Vietnam War, the “Pentagon Papers” are leaked: a classified study of revealing a government cover up relating to the war. Kay Graham (Meryl Steep) is the owner and largest shareholder of the Washington Post newspaper. Taking on a position she never foresaw herself ever doing after the untimely death of her husband. And, finally having to make one of the toughest decision of her entire life, both personally and professionally. To not only bringing down the government, but some very close personal friends in the process. It takes her Editor-In-Chief, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) to convince her the importance of the news and the role journalists must play to deliver the news and protect the governed and not the government.
When you hear the high caliber names such as Hanks, Streep, Speilberg, you can almost guarantee a top notch film with unbelievable emphasis on character development. They definitely did not disappoint! The Post works as a history lesson. Not only does it portray the events that took place with such thorough details, it exemplifies the relationship between not only a journalist and their source, but also the personal struggle between the editor, the owner of the newspaper, their friends who hold major positions within the government, and the moral obligation to at least get the truth out to the public.
The set design, the costume design, the characters’ mannerisms are flawless. Even the way social interaction was demonstrated between men and women. Women’s role is in the home, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining. Something so simple as the use of a rotary phone played such a nostalgic role. I can’t say enough about the wonderful acting skills of both Streep and Hanks. I suspect one or both with be receiving some serious accolades during awards season. Streep and Hanks both shine throughout the entire film. They both did a great job at relaying the emotions and the turmoil these characters faced.
Many lines throughout the movie–“if we don’t hold them accountable, than who will?”–ring true to a lot of the issues affecting us today.
When you hear the high caliber names such as Hanks, Streep, Speilberg, you can almost guarantee a top notch film with unbelievable emphasis on character development. They definitely did not disappoint! The Post works as a history lesson. Not only does it portray the events that took place with such thorough details, it exemplifies the relationship between not only a journalist and their source, but also the personal struggle between the editor, the owner of the newspaper, their friends who hold major positions within the government, and the moral obligation to at least get the truth out to the public.
The set design, the costume design, the characters’ mannerisms are flawless. Even the way social interaction was demonstrated between men and women. Women’s role is in the home, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining. Something so simple as the use of a rotary phone played such a nostalgic role. I can’t say enough about the wonderful acting skills of both Streep and Hanks. I suspect one or both with be receiving some serious accolades during awards season. Streep and Hanks both shine throughout the entire film. They both did a great job at relaying the emotions and the turmoil these characters faced.
Many lines throughout the movie–“if we don’t hold them accountable, than who will?”–ring true to a lot of the issues affecting us today.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Snatch (2001) in Movies
Dec 20, 2020
Hilarious
Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Snatch
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
Henry Rollins recommended Apocalypse Now (1979) in Movies (curated)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
**I wrote this review a decade ago. I was going to change some stuff (mostly the last couple lines of the last paragraph), but thought it was too crude and hilarious to remove. Hopefully you feel the same way. Thanks for reading.**
In 1980, Pamela Voorhees set out to kill all the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake. Several years ago, the counselors did nothing as Mrs. Voorhees' son, Jason, drowned in the lake. Now, as the camp is about to re-open, Mrs. Voorhees has returned to seek revenge for her son and she only has one more victim before she accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately for Mrs. Voorhees, she didn't count on this particular camp counselor decapitating her and ending her reign of terror once and for all. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Jason was still alive and witnessed his mother's gruesome death. Now, in the present day, Jason is the one who seeks revenge and anyone who even comes near Camp Crystal Lake is at risk of feeling his onslaught.
It's been something like five and a half years since we last saw Jason Voorhees in the theater. So was it worth the wait? Does the remake measure up to the rest of the franchise? Is it a remake worth seeing at all? Does it continue the trend with 2009 being a strong year for the horror genre? The short answer to all of these questions is yes.
I've always been partial to the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Voorhees has always been my favorite when it comes slasher films. So I was beyond excited by the time today finally rolled around. The film opens with a flashback that chronicles what would be the ending to the original film. Jump to the present day. Some kids decide to hike out into the woods to have some fun and wind up about a half mile from Camp Blood. Everything is fun and games until one of them turns up missing. The survivors wind up exploring and get picked off one by one while Jason wears a bag over his head. After the scene in the trailer where Jason runs towards the girl on the ground and swings his machete, we get a black screen with "Friday the 13th" in red plastered across it.
Six weeks later, Clay is looking for his sister, Whitney. She was one of the victims of the attack we just witnessed. It seems as though everyone has given up hope looking for her except him. Meanwhile, Trent and his friends are going up to his dad's cabin for the weekend which just so happens to reside on Camp Crystal Lake. It's basically just more pigs being sent out to slaughter from there. Jason's bag gets pulled off right before he disposes of one of his victims in a barn. It's there that he stumbles across a hockey mask and things begin to pick up from there.
The film definitely delivers in all of the elements that make up the formula to a Friday the 13th film. There's plenty of T&A and sex for any sexhound. I haven't seen any R-rated film with this much nudity and sexual content in quite a while. The kills are also pretty satisfactory for a Friday fan. I think Trent's death is probably the most memorable, but I'm partial to Amanda's death because it was an interesting twist on the sleeping bag kill. Officer Bracke's kill was also a favorite of mine. Then, of course, there's Jason's death. It's interesting since it seems obvious how things are going to turn out for Jason, but it winds up happening in a round-a-bout way. Something is thrown in there to throw the audience off and that not many would see coming. Kind of like a, "Oh, maybe he'll die this way instead," kind of thing. Thinking back on it, it also felt like a throwback to one of the earlier sequels, which is pretty cool.
We can't finish this review without talking about Derek Mears as the man behind the hockey mask. I feel like he did a great job. I prefer him over Ken Kirzinger in Freddy Vs Jason. He kind of reminded me as a cross between C.J. Graham(part VI) and Kane Hodder(parts VII-IX). He also ran at times, which may put some people off. I actually enjoyed the running quite a bit. It reminded me of Jason in The Final Chapter, which is my favorite F13 film. He had the body movements down to perfection and is a worthy addition to the list of actors who have donned the hockey mask.
My one complaint is that it seemed like it was hard to see what was going on in certain scenes. The camera would be too shaky or scenes wouldn't have enough lighting and be too dark. It's really a minor complaint though as it usually only lasted a few seconds when it did occur.
So, all in all, I feel like it was well worth the wait for this film. I am really hoping it does well because I would welcome sequels with open arms. The remake follows the Friday the 13th formula extremely well. Right down to the ending. I guess the only thing that's not like some of the previous sequels is the acting, which seems to be top notch for a slasher film. As a Friday the 13th fan, I'm more than satisfied with the remake. To tell the truth, it was just nice to see a film with Jason Voorhees in theaters again. And as I've told quite a few friends, the feeling I had after walking out of the theater was equivalent to the way I feel after I blow my load. Not many films can plaster that on their movie poster, but this one could. And really, that's the biggest compliment of all.
In 1980, Pamela Voorhees set out to kill all the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake. Several years ago, the counselors did nothing as Mrs. Voorhees' son, Jason, drowned in the lake. Now, as the camp is about to re-open, Mrs. Voorhees has returned to seek revenge for her son and she only has one more victim before she accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately for Mrs. Voorhees, she didn't count on this particular camp counselor decapitating her and ending her reign of terror once and for all. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Jason was still alive and witnessed his mother's gruesome death. Now, in the present day, Jason is the one who seeks revenge and anyone who even comes near Camp Crystal Lake is at risk of feeling his onslaught.
It's been something like five and a half years since we last saw Jason Voorhees in the theater. So was it worth the wait? Does the remake measure up to the rest of the franchise? Is it a remake worth seeing at all? Does it continue the trend with 2009 being a strong year for the horror genre? The short answer to all of these questions is yes.
I've always been partial to the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Voorhees has always been my favorite when it comes slasher films. So I was beyond excited by the time today finally rolled around. The film opens with a flashback that chronicles what would be the ending to the original film. Jump to the present day. Some kids decide to hike out into the woods to have some fun and wind up about a half mile from Camp Blood. Everything is fun and games until one of them turns up missing. The survivors wind up exploring and get picked off one by one while Jason wears a bag over his head. After the scene in the trailer where Jason runs towards the girl on the ground and swings his machete, we get a black screen with "Friday the 13th" in red plastered across it.
Six weeks later, Clay is looking for his sister, Whitney. She was one of the victims of the attack we just witnessed. It seems as though everyone has given up hope looking for her except him. Meanwhile, Trent and his friends are going up to his dad's cabin for the weekend which just so happens to reside on Camp Crystal Lake. It's basically just more pigs being sent out to slaughter from there. Jason's bag gets pulled off right before he disposes of one of his victims in a barn. It's there that he stumbles across a hockey mask and things begin to pick up from there.
The film definitely delivers in all of the elements that make up the formula to a Friday the 13th film. There's plenty of T&A and sex for any sexhound. I haven't seen any R-rated film with this much nudity and sexual content in quite a while. The kills are also pretty satisfactory for a Friday fan. I think Trent's death is probably the most memorable, but I'm partial to Amanda's death because it was an interesting twist on the sleeping bag kill. Officer Bracke's kill was also a favorite of mine. Then, of course, there's Jason's death. It's interesting since it seems obvious how things are going to turn out for Jason, but it winds up happening in a round-a-bout way. Something is thrown in there to throw the audience off and that not many would see coming. Kind of like a, "Oh, maybe he'll die this way instead," kind of thing. Thinking back on it, it also felt like a throwback to one of the earlier sequels, which is pretty cool.
We can't finish this review without talking about Derek Mears as the man behind the hockey mask. I feel like he did a great job. I prefer him over Ken Kirzinger in Freddy Vs Jason. He kind of reminded me as a cross between C.J. Graham(part VI) and Kane Hodder(parts VII-IX). He also ran at times, which may put some people off. I actually enjoyed the running quite a bit. It reminded me of Jason in The Final Chapter, which is my favorite F13 film. He had the body movements down to perfection and is a worthy addition to the list of actors who have donned the hockey mask.
My one complaint is that it seemed like it was hard to see what was going on in certain scenes. The camera would be too shaky or scenes wouldn't have enough lighting and be too dark. It's really a minor complaint though as it usually only lasted a few seconds when it did occur.
So, all in all, I feel like it was well worth the wait for this film. I am really hoping it does well because I would welcome sequels with open arms. The remake follows the Friday the 13th formula extremely well. Right down to the ending. I guess the only thing that's not like some of the previous sequels is the acting, which seems to be top notch for a slasher film. As a Friday the 13th fan, I'm more than satisfied with the remake. To tell the truth, it was just nice to see a film with Jason Voorhees in theaters again. And as I've told quite a few friends, the feeling I had after walking out of the theater was equivalent to the way I feel after I blow my load. Not many films can plaster that on their movie poster, but this one could. And really, that's the biggest compliment of all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
