Search
April Fool's Day (1986)
7.1
Rate It
Movie
On the weekend leading up to April Fools' Day, a group of college friends, consisting of Harvey,...
Sago Mini Music Box
Education and Games
App
Play a song for your furry friends as you go on a musical adventure. This adorable touch-anywhere...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Among the Ten Thousand Things in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Review on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/2016/01/oh-im-becoming-ghost-in-your-life-and.html">blog here</a>.
Jack Shanley is a fairly well-known New York artist. He's a married father of two. He's also an adulterer, who carries on affairs in his New York studio. This comes back to bite him, so to speak, when one of his exes sends his wife a large box chronicling their entire relationship - emails, texts, sexts - all printed and contained in this one box. The box is delivered to Jack's apartment and opened by his eleven-year-old daughter, Kay, and fifteen-year-old son, Simon. They show the box to their mother, Deb, forcing her to confront the many flaws of her husband. Meanwhile, Kay and Simon are (justifiably) traumatized by the box's contents and the possible dissolution of their parents' marriage.
This was an odd book. As a child of divorce, a lot of this book hit home, and I felt myself feeling a great deal of sympathy for Deb, Kay, and Simon - especially as they disappear off to their vacation home, of sorts, to recover. (Alas, no vacation home when I was a child.) Julia Pierpoint is certainly a strong writer and her prose is lovely and well-crafted. Still, the book often just seems a little flat.
The strangest part of this book, to me, as many other reviewers have pointed out - is that is constructed in four parts - parts one and three basically deal with the immediate aftermath of the box's delivery and how the family reacts. Parts two and four tell us what happen to Jack, Deb, Kay, and Simon for their entire lives. It's an odd author tool, and I'm not sure it entirely works. For me, I was caught up enough in Part One's tale and then found Part Two incredibly jarring - even more so to be dumped back into the current story at Part Three. Part Four repeats Two a bit and tells a bit more about what happens to the characters. It's an odd device, and I really would have preferred not to have had Part Two stuck in there at all. I suppose it's an artistic overreach that appeals to critics but not most actual readers.
Overall, I found the book an intriguing look at a family dealing with a father's betrayal. Not a ton happens - it's not that sort of book - but Pierpont's writing is strong, and I liked Simon and Kay. I am not sure the book is one that will leave a lasting impression with me, though.
Jack Shanley is a fairly well-known New York artist. He's a married father of two. He's also an adulterer, who carries on affairs in his New York studio. This comes back to bite him, so to speak, when one of his exes sends his wife a large box chronicling their entire relationship - emails, texts, sexts - all printed and contained in this one box. The box is delivered to Jack's apartment and opened by his eleven-year-old daughter, Kay, and fifteen-year-old son, Simon. They show the box to their mother, Deb, forcing her to confront the many flaws of her husband. Meanwhile, Kay and Simon are (justifiably) traumatized by the box's contents and the possible dissolution of their parents' marriage.
This was an odd book. As a child of divorce, a lot of this book hit home, and I felt myself feeling a great deal of sympathy for Deb, Kay, and Simon - especially as they disappear off to their vacation home, of sorts, to recover. (Alas, no vacation home when I was a child.) Julia Pierpoint is certainly a strong writer and her prose is lovely and well-crafted. Still, the book often just seems a little flat.
The strangest part of this book, to me, as many other reviewers have pointed out - is that is constructed in four parts - parts one and three basically deal with the immediate aftermath of the box's delivery and how the family reacts. Parts two and four tell us what happen to Jack, Deb, Kay, and Simon for their entire lives. It's an odd author tool, and I'm not sure it entirely works. For me, I was caught up enough in Part One's tale and then found Part Two incredibly jarring - even more so to be dumped back into the current story at Part Three. Part Four repeats Two a bit and tells a bit more about what happens to the characters. It's an odd device, and I really would have preferred not to have had Part Two stuck in there at all. I suppose it's an artistic overreach that appeals to critics but not most actual readers.
Overall, I found the book an intriguing look at a family dealing with a father's betrayal. Not a ton happens - it's not that sort of book - but Pierpont's writing is strong, and I liked Simon and Kay. I am not sure the book is one that will leave a lasting impression with me, though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peaks and Valleys (2020) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Acting of the two leads (2 more)
Cinematography of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness
Script and direction both good
Two strangers forced to over-winter in Alaskan wilderness
In “Peaks and Valleys”, Jack (Kevin T. Bennett) is living as a recluse in a remote cabin in Alaska. His solitude is rudely interrupted by a plane which drops a naked, trussed-up and drugged-up girl into his lake. Traumatised by her experiences, the girl (Bailey, played by Kitty Mahoney) is unwilling to trust the man. But trust him she must, since they are in the Alaskan wilderness and Jack tells her that the supply plane might not come for a couple of months.
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
Fifth Victim
Book
A direct descendant of Jack the Ripper's last victim tells herancestor'sstoryBetween August and...
Dragnet (1987)
7.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
This is the city... and only Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks can save it in this hilarious box-office...
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Bag Man (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Sometimes it sucks to be a delivery guy when you don’t know what you are
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
Daniel Day-Lewis -The Biography
Book
Daniel Day-Lewis is an actor regarded by many as the finest of his generation. His portrayal of...
JFK (1991)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
JFK is Oliver Stone’s 1991 powerful and controversial film about the shots heard round the world...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
As average as you can get
The lacklustre box-office performance of Jack Reacher in 2012 seemed to scupper plans for the film to become the first in a new Tom Cruise-led action franchise to rival the likes of Mission Impossible and its mixed critical response only added to its woes.
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/