Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Bingo ABC: phonics nursery rhyme song for kids with karaoke games
Games and Education
App
Bring music and joy for the whole family with Bingo Song! Cute interactions, a catchy tune, and...
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Haunted (2013) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019
About As Scary As A Trip To Seaworld
Contains spoilers, click to show
Haunted, a film Directed by Steven M Smith is an unusual addition to anyone's 'film' collection, as instantly you question whether this is even a film to begin with, the content is very documentary based, opening with factual accounts and a history of an abandoned railway museum. All of the opening shots are filmed in documentary format and this continues throughout the film even when found footage elements are introduced.
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Just what the doctor ordered: a charming and thoughtful summer comedy.
Romance and comedy work together beautifully on film: love is innately ridiculous after all! But mix in a dramatic element – particularly a serious medical emergency – to a Rom Com and you walk a dangerous line between on the one hand letting the drama overwhelm the comedy ( “Well! I don’t feel like laughing now!”) and on the other hand diverging into shockingly mawkish finger-down-the-throat sentimentality. Fortunately the new comedy – “The Big Sick” – walks that line to perfection.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated A Tale of Two Hearts (Once Upon a Dickens Christmas, #2) in Books
Mar 5, 2019
Innkeeper’s daughter Mina Scott will do anything to escape the drudgery of her life. She saves every penny to attend a finishing school, dreaming of the day she’ll become a real lady—and catch the eye of William Barlow, a frequent guest at the inn. William is a gentleman’s son, a charming rogue but penniless. However, his bachelor uncle will soon name an heir—either him or his puritanical cousin. In an effort to secure the inheritance, William gives his uncle the impression he’s married, which works until he’s invited to bring his wife for a visit. William asks Mina to be his pretend bride, only until his uncle names an heir on Christmas Day. Mina is flattered and frustrated by the offer, for she wants a true relationship with William. Yet, she agrees. . .then wishes she hadn’t as she comes to love the old man. And when the truth is finally discovered, more than just money is lost. Can two hearts survive such a deception?
My Thoughts: Mina has had her eye on Will since the first time she served him at her father's inn; so when Will asks her to help him by pretending to be his bride, she jumps at the chance. But as Mina and Will find out, deception brings on worries and more deception. They soon learn that as the Bible says that truth will set you free. There are many lessons in this novel. One is to not lie, to be truthful in all things. It's never good to keep secrets. It's never a good thing to play with another's affections. It is also a story of forgiveness and second chances.
This was a fun book to read. This is the second book in the series "Once Upon a Dickens Christmas" and even though I haven't read the first one, it was easy to read and follow along. The characters were fun, Mina being the main character is a sweet young woman who loves to read. The readers are instantly drawn to her. Then there are Will's cousins, which I found to be very comical and in some ways true to life.
Michelle Griep is a wonderful writer, who holds the reader's attention and adds a little whimsy to the characters and story-line.
I truly enjoyed this book and will be looking forward to reading more from Michelle Griep.
My Thoughts: Mina has had her eye on Will since the first time she served him at her father's inn; so when Will asks her to help him by pretending to be his bride, she jumps at the chance. But as Mina and Will find out, deception brings on worries and more deception. They soon learn that as the Bible says that truth will set you free. There are many lessons in this novel. One is to not lie, to be truthful in all things. It's never good to keep secrets. It's never a good thing to play with another's affections. It is also a story of forgiveness and second chances.
This was a fun book to read. This is the second book in the series "Once Upon a Dickens Christmas" and even though I haven't read the first one, it was easy to read and follow along. The characters were fun, Mina being the main character is a sweet young woman who loves to read. The readers are instantly drawn to her. Then there are Will's cousins, which I found to be very comical and in some ways true to life.
Michelle Griep is a wonderful writer, who holds the reader's attention and adds a little whimsy to the characters and story-line.
I truly enjoyed this book and will be looking forward to reading more from Michelle Griep.
Mark Halpern (153 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Jan 18, 2018
Acting (2 more)
Story
Cast
Skate or Die
A lot of us remember the day when Nancy Kerrigan's knee was smashed by a hired hit man. According to this biographical film it is told that it was supposed to death threat letters that were to be written to scare her off but, instead one of the hired men took a rod and smashed her knee. Kerrigan was slated as the top us skater to qualify for the Olympics and Harding was close behind being the only female who could land the triple axle.
The story told of Harding's life in this movie makes us feel horrible for her. The way she was brought up, her father leaving when she was very young, the abusive mentally and physically mother, the abusive husband who she had battered women's syndrome with. Her bad ass up brining that made the judges hated her for not being American enough. Her life was Shit that turned into to gold but back to shit yet again. She possibly could have made it on her own.
Harding's husband was behind the plot along with his dumb friend who was Harding's bodyguard arranged to have Kerrigan dismantled in some fashion. Of course these idiots were found and spilled their guts. Harding was named as knowing about the plot but, has denied up until her latest interview. As she said "I have said I am sorry enough, enough saying i'm sorry." So believe this story or the hundred others that are out there on exactly what happened. I truly believe she knew about the plot just not when it was going to happen.
Marggot Robbie shows her acting range in this movie. She has played along side Leo in Wolf Of Wall Street an shined. She played everyone's favorite woman villain as Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad and now doing real biographical role. She shows that she has no boundaries and can adapt to any role.
Allison Janney. Deserved the golden globe and has a dam good chance at winning the Oscar for best supporting actress. She has played almost every genre you can throw at an actress and succeed. She is so good that she made me believe that she could have been Harding's mother twin in an alternate universe from all of the interviews.
This is a great close to excellent movie
The story told of Harding's life in this movie makes us feel horrible for her. The way she was brought up, her father leaving when she was very young, the abusive mentally and physically mother, the abusive husband who she had battered women's syndrome with. Her bad ass up brining that made the judges hated her for not being American enough. Her life was Shit that turned into to gold but back to shit yet again. She possibly could have made it on her own.
Harding's husband was behind the plot along with his dumb friend who was Harding's bodyguard arranged to have Kerrigan dismantled in some fashion. Of course these idiots were found and spilled their guts. Harding was named as knowing about the plot but, has denied up until her latest interview. As she said "I have said I am sorry enough, enough saying i'm sorry." So believe this story or the hundred others that are out there on exactly what happened. I truly believe she knew about the plot just not when it was going to happen.
Marggot Robbie shows her acting range in this movie. She has played along side Leo in Wolf Of Wall Street an shined. She played everyone's favorite woman villain as Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad and now doing real biographical role. She shows that she has no boundaries and can adapt to any role.
Allison Janney. Deserved the golden globe and has a dam good chance at winning the Oscar for best supporting actress. She has played almost every genre you can throw at an actress and succeed. She is so good that she made me believe that she could have been Harding's mother twin in an alternate universe from all of the interviews.
This is a great close to excellent movie
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Bunny Finds a Friend in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Cara Jong is working as a process server when she delivers a summons to a Santa. Except this Santa is a gorgeous woman, who immediately strikes a chord with Cara. The two share a "moment," which stays with Cara for some time. She eventually tracks down said Santa, who turns out to be Jude Donovan, a well-known children's book author. The two "meet cute," so to speak, at a reading of Jude's and sparks fly. They begin dating, but it seems like things just aren't meant to be. Will Cara's flighty nature and lack of commitment (all well-documented by her older sisters) doom the relationship? What about Jude's ex and her young daughter Zoe, who doesn't seem happy to have her Mom dating again? Can Cara and Jude overcome these obstacles and find happiness?
This was a cute book, with fairly realistic characters leading a fairly realistic life--something that's harder to find than one would think in lesbian literature. Cara's a regular gal, with a typical lack of commitment found in a myriad characters in literature, gay and straight. Perhaps the biggest issue with this book is that it sort of seems like a sketch of what could have been an even more fully-developed and even more enjoyable novel. We don't get to see a lot of Cara and Jude's actual relationship development, for instance. Their courtship and issues are quickly glossed over. I would have liked to have seen more of what led them to fall for each other--and fall apart. After all, those sorts of things (falling in love, struggling to maintain a relationship while juggling exes and children and jobs) are what we all have in common.
Cara's sisters are also supposed to add a bit of comic relief, perhaps, to the novel, but they sometimes come across as harpy and annoying. While several of them are dealing with complex issues, they don't get the full attention they truly deserve.
Still, this was a fun, quick read. It's always refreshing to read lesbian fiction with normal characters navigating life. I liked Cara, sympathized with her on a multitude of levels, and did enjoy reading about her journey. Overall, 3.5 stars.
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley - thank you!
This was a cute book, with fairly realistic characters leading a fairly realistic life--something that's harder to find than one would think in lesbian literature. Cara's a regular gal, with a typical lack of commitment found in a myriad characters in literature, gay and straight. Perhaps the biggest issue with this book is that it sort of seems like a sketch of what could have been an even more fully-developed and even more enjoyable novel. We don't get to see a lot of Cara and Jude's actual relationship development, for instance. Their courtship and issues are quickly glossed over. I would have liked to have seen more of what led them to fall for each other--and fall apart. After all, those sorts of things (falling in love, struggling to maintain a relationship while juggling exes and children and jobs) are what we all have in common.
Cara's sisters are also supposed to add a bit of comic relief, perhaps, to the novel, but they sometimes come across as harpy and annoying. While several of them are dealing with complex issues, they don't get the full attention they truly deserve.
Still, this was a fun, quick read. It's always refreshing to read lesbian fiction with normal characters navigating life. I liked Cara, sympathized with her on a multitude of levels, and did enjoy reading about her journey. Overall, 3.5 stars.
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley - thank you!
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018 (Updated Nov 5, 2018)
Slight variation on the Alice in Wonderland reboot
I'm guessing Disney want to keep going with their live action Princess films, and thought they'd hit gold with the rights to the Nutcracker for a Christmas release. Similar to the 2010 Alice in Wonderland, the film intends to act as a sequel to the original tale of the Nutcracker, where the world has fallen into disarray. Clara is the daughter of the original story's Marie, who has passed away, and looking to open the intriguing present left by her mother she finds herself following a mouse (not a rabbit!) into a strange world. She is introduced to the world her mother was made queen of, though sadly learns that the "fourth realm" (led by Helen Mirren as Mother Ginger) is at war with the other three (among them are realms led by Keira Knightley and an underused Richard E Grant).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).