Search
Search results
The Ballad of Mary Kearney
Book
"I am dead, my Mary; the man who loved you body and soul lies in some dishonorable grave." In...
Historical Fiction Irish History Women's Fiction
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Laundromat (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2021
Is this the dullest movie title in film history?
In "The Laundromat", Ellen Martin (Meryl Streep) loses her husband Joe (James Cromwell) in a boating accident. She expects a multi-million dollar insurance payout, but is frustrated that the insurance companies evaporate in a miasma of shell-companies and double-dealing. Her compulsive investigations lead her to two Panamanian-based double dealers: Jürgen Mossack (Gary Oldman) and Ramón Fonseca (Antonio Banderas).
Based on a true story, a hack of the company's 2.6 TB of email data led to the 2016 scandal known as "The Panama Papers": something that dragged into the headlines the alleged dodgy-dealings of many celebrities including David Cameron.
Positives:
- Meryl Steep delivers another superb performance as the grieving avenging widow.
- There's a "twist" in the final scene which I didn't see coming, and which was impressive.
Negatives:
- This is a really strange and disjointed movie. It seems to be trying to be "The Big Short", but is a significant fail. There are numerous quirky scenes, most involving Oldman and Banderas. But there is enough bat-shit crazy stuff in here to make you think that either Sonderbergh, or the writers, or both were on acid. What was with the "Dawn of Man" sequence at the start? And why the anonymisation of the 'hominids'? Lots of bonkers stuff.
- The movie is made up of a series of chapters ("Lessons"), but the connection between the lesson title and the "message" conveyed is loose at best. It's all a bit of a convoluted mess.
- The script seems to assume a school-boy level of knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, some of the explanations of Mssrs, Oldman and Banderas come across as extremely patronising 'mansplaining'.
Summary Thoughts on "The Laundromat": There's a stellar cast involved with this one, and the subject matter in the hands of an Adam McKay could have been compelling. But as it is, it's rather a disjointed mess. It's worth a watch just to see the actors at work. But that's about the long and the short of it. Watch "The Big Short" again instead.
This has been sitting on my Netflix box for a long time without a watch, and this is mostly because the title suggested something completely different (and not of great interest). (Yes, I understand in retrospect that the movie is partially concerned with money laundering!) It was only my wife suggesting we watch it that pushed it onto the list. If it had been titled something like "The Panama Papers" I would have probably watched it sooner!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/18/the-laundromat-is-this-the-worst-title-of-any-movie-in-film-history/. Thanks.)
Based on a true story, a hack of the company's 2.6 TB of email data led to the 2016 scandal known as "The Panama Papers": something that dragged into the headlines the alleged dodgy-dealings of many celebrities including David Cameron.
Positives:
- Meryl Steep delivers another superb performance as the grieving avenging widow.
- There's a "twist" in the final scene which I didn't see coming, and which was impressive.
Negatives:
- This is a really strange and disjointed movie. It seems to be trying to be "The Big Short", but is a significant fail. There are numerous quirky scenes, most involving Oldman and Banderas. But there is enough bat-shit crazy stuff in here to make you think that either Sonderbergh, or the writers, or both were on acid. What was with the "Dawn of Man" sequence at the start? And why the anonymisation of the 'hominids'? Lots of bonkers stuff.
- The movie is made up of a series of chapters ("Lessons"), but the connection between the lesson title and the "message" conveyed is loose at best. It's all a bit of a convoluted mess.
- The script seems to assume a school-boy level of knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, some of the explanations of Mssrs, Oldman and Banderas come across as extremely patronising 'mansplaining'.
Summary Thoughts on "The Laundromat": There's a stellar cast involved with this one, and the subject matter in the hands of an Adam McKay could have been compelling. But as it is, it's rather a disjointed mess. It's worth a watch just to see the actors at work. But that's about the long and the short of it. Watch "The Big Short" again instead.
This has been sitting on my Netflix box for a long time without a watch, and this is mostly because the title suggested something completely different (and not of great interest). (Yes, I understand in retrospect that the movie is partially concerned with money laundering!) It was only my wife suggesting we watch it that pushed it onto the list. If it had been titled something like "The Panama Papers" I would have probably watched it sooner!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/18/the-laundromat-is-this-the-worst-title-of-any-movie-in-film-history/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Annabelle (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Annabelle is the newest demon-based spooky fright film produced by James Wan (producer Saw II-IV & director Insidious 1&2). The trailers would have you believe that it is a prequel to the Conjuring. Well I suppose it is, although a very loose prequel.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alien (1979) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
This classic holds up very, very well more than 40 years later
I convinced my cynical 19 year old to watch an "ancient" film (her phrase) - so I was careful with my choice. I know she likes horror, so thought I would try to see if she could be scared the old fashioned way and pulled the 1979 Sci-Fi/Horror classic ALIEN off the shelves to show her.
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Elisabeth Moss - excellent performance (1 more)
Slowly creeping tension - clever camera work
Have you seen "The Invisible Man"?
Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is trapped in a highly controlling and violent relationship with technology mogul Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). Escaping from his fortress-like home, she lives in fear of his retribution. So she is much relieved, if a little surprised, at the report of his suicide. Now living with old friend James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid), Cecilia can finally start to relax. But as strange things start to happen, is the ghost of Griffin back to haunt her? Or is it really all in her rapidly disintegrating mind, as her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) and James suspect?
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Dirt Road in Books
May 13, 2017
Kelman is an expert in understanding people
Kelman’s new novel Dirt Road is story that takes both characters and reader on a journey right from the outset, but the journey is more than it seems. The novel begins in the West coast of Scotland where we learn that Murdo - a sixteen-year-old boy - and his father Tom are mourning the death of their mother/wife and sister/daughter. Searching for solace, they embark on a journey to Alabama, U.S.A to spend time with Uncle John and Aunt Maureen. For Murdo, family is just a happy memory, a moment in time captured in a photograph, ‘The family was four and not just him and Dad’, whilst for Tom, family is the bond that holds them together. Throughout the journey, Tom strives to guide his son and keep him on ‘the right path’, yet Murdo, as we will learn, has a path of his own to find. Stifled by the fathers influence, the boy has a tendency to stray, thus when they reach Allentown Mississippi, Murdo stumbles upon a family of musicians led by Zydeco performer Queen Monzee-ay. Murdo is as drawn to music as his father is to family, the boy himself is an accomplished accordion player, and when he is offered an opportunity to play a set with Queen Monzee-ay in two weeks’ time, we watch as the road between father and son diverges and choice and risk becomes the key plot in the story.
While this may appear a simple story line, Kelman’s exploration into the fragmented relationship between father and son gives the reader an honest analysis of family and grief. The third person narrator, with bursts of free indirect discourse from Murdo, allows the reader both an internal and external insight into the constraints of family. This parallel leaves the reader feeling uncomfortable, yet with a conflicting heart. This is Kelman’s unique writing style at its best.
Dirt Road is more than a novel of grief and family relationships though; it is a novel of risk, of following new paths with uncertainties, about leaving behind the familiarities and safety of the past and following the heart. It is about deep connections; for Murdo this is through music and the feeling of freedom that he associates with music, whilst for the other characters it is about cultural connections and Scottish ancestry. Kelman’s clever use of parallels shows the reader the intensity of human connections whilst suggesting that change and progression is possible. This great novel will linger in your thoughts for weeks after you put it down, and it brings to mind a poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
For the full poem visit (https://www.poetryfoundation.org).
Dirt Road by James Kelman
Canongate Books (14 July 2016)
While this may appear a simple story line, Kelman’s exploration into the fragmented relationship between father and son gives the reader an honest analysis of family and grief. The third person narrator, with bursts of free indirect discourse from Murdo, allows the reader both an internal and external insight into the constraints of family. This parallel leaves the reader feeling uncomfortable, yet with a conflicting heart. This is Kelman’s unique writing style at its best.
Dirt Road is more than a novel of grief and family relationships though; it is a novel of risk, of following new paths with uncertainties, about leaving behind the familiarities and safety of the past and following the heart. It is about deep connections; for Murdo this is through music and the feeling of freedom that he associates with music, whilst for the other characters it is about cultural connections and Scottish ancestry. Kelman’s clever use of parallels shows the reader the intensity of human connections whilst suggesting that change and progression is possible. This great novel will linger in your thoughts for weeks after you put it down, and it brings to mind a poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
For the full poem visit (https://www.poetryfoundation.org).
Dirt Road by James Kelman
Canongate Books (14 July 2016)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Directed by Steven Spielberg, Ready Player One is a fast paced action film full of fun pop culture nostalgia. Set in a dystopian 2045, the world’s number one resource is the Oasis. A virtual reality world where everyone either works or uses to escape the doldrums of everyday slum/trailer park life of Columbus Ohio.
When the creator of the Oasis, James Holiday (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves a Willy Wonka like challenge in the Oasis, where whoever is the first to find Holiday’s “Easter egg,” will inherit control of the Oasis and the fortune that comes with it. Naturally, we go on a “Goonies” like adventure where we follow the hunt for the egg through our hero Wade Watts/Parzival (Tye Sheridan) and his crew of friends Aech (Lena Waithe) and Art3mis (Olivia Cooke). They hope to keep the Oasis free for everyone and make it so no one will have to slave away working to pay off debt in the Oasis. Meanwhile, the wicked corporation, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) that will do anything to win control of the Oasis as a way to make money and enslave people. Got that? Good. Because the film pretty much explains this in the first fifteen minutes or so. After that, the film becomes a fast paced adventure race to find each of the three key’s needed to find Holiday’s egg and win the challenge.
Since the majority of the film takes place in the Oasis, we find ourselves mostly watching animation and voice acting. The cast does an excellent job delivering their lines combined with top tier animation. These two things are melded so well, at times you barley even realize you are watching animation. Additionally, the Oasis is packed full with visual pop culture references and gags. Whether its video game or comic characters, a reference to a scene from a movie, soundtrack, or even certain famous sound cues, you will find yourself constantly looking at everything on screen and smiling with amusement. Even if you do not know the references very well, the film moves at a fast enough pace through each part of the adventure, you never feel alienated or as if you are out of the loop.
For those who are wondering, then film differs greatly from the hit 2011 novel by the same name, in that it is able to create a version of this story that is entirely its own. Thus it leaves the “book is better” conversations to the side. Instead, the book could be seen as a complement to the movie, for those looking for more depth in character, the real world of 2045 and the Oasis. I was surprised how much I enjoyed the changes from the book in the film, and yet, I want to re-read the novel to get more out of this rich environment.
In the end, I’d have to say that Ready Player One is worth the full price of admission. There is something for everyone to enjoy in this fun, fast paced, action film.
When the creator of the Oasis, James Holiday (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves a Willy Wonka like challenge in the Oasis, where whoever is the first to find Holiday’s “Easter egg,” will inherit control of the Oasis and the fortune that comes with it. Naturally, we go on a “Goonies” like adventure where we follow the hunt for the egg through our hero Wade Watts/Parzival (Tye Sheridan) and his crew of friends Aech (Lena Waithe) and Art3mis (Olivia Cooke). They hope to keep the Oasis free for everyone and make it so no one will have to slave away working to pay off debt in the Oasis. Meanwhile, the wicked corporation, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) that will do anything to win control of the Oasis as a way to make money and enslave people. Got that? Good. Because the film pretty much explains this in the first fifteen minutes or so. After that, the film becomes a fast paced adventure race to find each of the three key’s needed to find Holiday’s egg and win the challenge.
Since the majority of the film takes place in the Oasis, we find ourselves mostly watching animation and voice acting. The cast does an excellent job delivering their lines combined with top tier animation. These two things are melded so well, at times you barley even realize you are watching animation. Additionally, the Oasis is packed full with visual pop culture references and gags. Whether its video game or comic characters, a reference to a scene from a movie, soundtrack, or even certain famous sound cues, you will find yourself constantly looking at everything on screen and smiling with amusement. Even if you do not know the references very well, the film moves at a fast enough pace through each part of the adventure, you never feel alienated or as if you are out of the loop.
For those who are wondering, then film differs greatly from the hit 2011 novel by the same name, in that it is able to create a version of this story that is entirely its own. Thus it leaves the “book is better” conversations to the side. Instead, the book could be seen as a complement to the movie, for those looking for more depth in character, the real world of 2045 and the Oasis. I was surprised how much I enjoyed the changes from the book in the film, and yet, I want to re-read the novel to get more out of this rich environment.
In the end, I’d have to say that Ready Player One is worth the full price of admission. There is something for everyone to enjoy in this fun, fast paced, action film.
Graham Bonnet: The Story Behind the Shades
Book
Graham Bonnet was born in Skegness in 1947 and had his first hit single with The Marbles in 1968,...