Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Deborah (162 KP) rated What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved in Books
Dec 21, 2018
This book is subtitled "Twenty Crucial Puzzle Solved". I'm not sure I quite agree with that - it's more a case of throwing some light on areas of the novels that may puzzle a modern reader but would have been plain to a contemporary audience.
For example, there is a chapter on the games played in the novels. No one (that I know!) plays at Speculation any more, but we can grasp both the fundamentals of the game ("I am never to see my cards and Mr Crawford does all the rest" as Lady Bertram puts it!) and read into it some further illumination of the participating characters. And of course understand why Sir Thomas thought that it might not amuse him to have wife wife as a partner in Whist!
There are sections on characters who have no reported speech (it had not occurred before that we never hear Captain Benwick speak, but it is quite true!), clears away the myth that there are no scenes where women are not present and wraps up with an important consideration of Jane Austen's place in the development of the novel. I think that as she is so very readable, and perhaps also because she is a woman writer, people in general are too apt to dismiss her importance, but her innovations in style are immeasurable. I don't think it is going too far to say that without Austen the novel would not have developed in the way it has. If you read Henry James, Flaubert, Kafka and a long et cetera, you best give your thanks to Jane Austen!
For example, there is a chapter on the games played in the novels. No one (that I know!) plays at Speculation any more, but we can grasp both the fundamentals of the game ("I am never to see my cards and Mr Crawford does all the rest" as Lady Bertram puts it!) and read into it some further illumination of the participating characters. And of course understand why Sir Thomas thought that it might not amuse him to have wife wife as a partner in Whist!
There are sections on characters who have no reported speech (it had not occurred before that we never hear Captain Benwick speak, but it is quite true!), clears away the myth that there are no scenes where women are not present and wraps up with an important consideration of Jane Austen's place in the development of the novel. I think that as she is so very readable, and perhaps also because she is a woman writer, people in general are too apt to dismiss her importance, but her innovations in style are immeasurable. I don't think it is going too far to say that without Austen the novel would not have developed in the way it has. If you read Henry James, Flaubert, Kafka and a long et cetera, you best give your thanks to Jane Austen!
Kristina (502 KP) rated Escaping From Houdini in Books
Dec 7, 2020
Have I mentioned how much I love Kerri?? I don't remember how I stumbled across her, but I do remember the reading "James Patterson Presents" caught my attention and gave me enough reason to give her a try - I'm so glad I did! From beginning to end I have loved this series. I'm a bit sad to see it finished, but I'm quite satisfied at the same time. Kerri includes both fact, ficion, and stretched truths in each of her books, which usually makes me curious as to how much is true, so I'm almost always conducting research afterward; I love a book that makes me eager to learn. Escaping From Houdini, while conducting the same mysterious murder-solving theme as the previous two books, focuses a bit more on the blossoming relationship between Audrey Rose and Thomas, which was a delight. While watching Audrey Rose struggle with illusion and truth, I found myself both irritated at her and understanding, for Mephistopheles cast a very convincing spell. Each encounter had me questioning how exactly things would end, in a romantic perspective. Throughout the book, while I filtered through suspects and had my own suspicions, the title made me the most curious - Houdini's name is in the title, but the main magician is Mephistopheles, so it had me questioning what Houdini's true role could be. Honestly, I'm not usually good at guessing correctly unless the author is horribly obvious about it, which Kerri most certainly is not, so I was surprised at who the killer was and the motive behind the murders. I very much look forward to more works by Kerri!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Nov 29, 2019
Verdict: Poor Film
Story: Peter Rabbit starts as we see how Peter Rabbit and his family and friends had a battle with old Mr McGregor (Neill) after they continued to steal from his garden, until he passes away. The next-door neighbour Bea (Byrne) does try to keep them safe the best she can.
When Thomas McGregor (Gleeson) moves into the house with plans to sell it, which sees the war coming back for Peter and his family, this time it might become deadlier.
Thoughts on Peter Rabbit
Characters – Peter Rabbit is the mischievous little rabbit that always gets his siblings into trouble as they always seem to terrorise the McGregor family, that does seem to be the only thing he does each day, making him out to be a horrible little rabbit. Thomas McGregor is a completely by the book toy store employee wanting to get to management, when he loses his job, he ends up following in his uncle footsteps, getting into a battle with the rabbits. Bea is the nice neighbour that has always tried to look after the animals, loves nature and is an artist.
Performances – Domhnall Gleeson is great along with Rose Byrne are the two main live action stars that both work well with how they act towards the animals. Most of the voice acting is mixed, with the three sisters working well, but James Corden not suiting the character.
Story – The story follows the adventures of Peter Rabbit against the McGregor’s, which just seems to keep escalating. The story is strange because it doesn’t make Peter likeable at all, he just seems to annoy McGregor and never do anything else, surely there would have been another food supply for him. Most of the story revolves around pop culture jokes, which have dated quickly, but by the end the story just becomes boring more than anything else.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure is just the troubles Peter gets himself in, we don’t seem to go any further, while the comedy is a miss already.
Settings – The film keeps the action in the country, which does seem to have only show how close the war between the two was.
Animation – The animated animals looks solid for the most part, but some of the moments seem weird.
Scene of the Movie – Harrods break down.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Peter Rabbit.
Final Thoughts – This is a big disappointment because the characters used are loveable for the most part, while this movie just makes them horrible.
Overall: Boring.
Story: Peter Rabbit starts as we see how Peter Rabbit and his family and friends had a battle with old Mr McGregor (Neill) after they continued to steal from his garden, until he passes away. The next-door neighbour Bea (Byrne) does try to keep them safe the best she can.
When Thomas McGregor (Gleeson) moves into the house with plans to sell it, which sees the war coming back for Peter and his family, this time it might become deadlier.
Thoughts on Peter Rabbit
Characters – Peter Rabbit is the mischievous little rabbit that always gets his siblings into trouble as they always seem to terrorise the McGregor family, that does seem to be the only thing he does each day, making him out to be a horrible little rabbit. Thomas McGregor is a completely by the book toy store employee wanting to get to management, when he loses his job, he ends up following in his uncle footsteps, getting into a battle with the rabbits. Bea is the nice neighbour that has always tried to look after the animals, loves nature and is an artist.
Performances – Domhnall Gleeson is great along with Rose Byrne are the two main live action stars that both work well with how they act towards the animals. Most of the voice acting is mixed, with the three sisters working well, but James Corden not suiting the character.
Story – The story follows the adventures of Peter Rabbit against the McGregor’s, which just seems to keep escalating. The story is strange because it doesn’t make Peter likeable at all, he just seems to annoy McGregor and never do anything else, surely there would have been another food supply for him. Most of the story revolves around pop culture jokes, which have dated quickly, but by the end the story just becomes boring more than anything else.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure is just the troubles Peter gets himself in, we don’t seem to go any further, while the comedy is a miss already.
Settings – The film keeps the action in the country, which does seem to have only show how close the war between the two was.
Animation – The animated animals looks solid for the most part, but some of the moments seem weird.
Scene of the Movie – Harrods break down.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Peter Rabbit.
Final Thoughts – This is a big disappointment because the characters used are loveable for the most part, while this movie just makes them horrible.
Overall: Boring.
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Cat and Mouse (Alex Cross, #4) in Books
Jul 22, 2019
Another brilliant Alex Cross
Contains spoilers, click to show
Alex Cross is back-and so is a raging and suicidal Gary Soneji. Out of prison and dying from the AIDS virus he contracted there, he will get revenge on Cross before he dies. In addition, we are introduced to a new pair of rivals whose paths cross that of Alex and Soneji. Thomas Augustine Pierce has been chasing his demon, Mr. Smith, since the savage murder of his fiancee. Mr. Smith is a unique monster, with actions toward his victims so insane-so unimaginable-that he is thought of as "not of the earth." Pierce, known in the business as St. Augustine because of his track record for catching killers and his invaluable status to the FBI and Interpol, may even be better than Cross.When things heat up and Alex is in a near-death coma following an attack in his own home, Pierce goes to Washington to help with the investigation. But just as he begins to piece together the mystery of how Gary Soneji could have mortally wounded Cross after he was believed to be dead, he is summoned to Paris with a postcard from Mr. Smith inviting him to a very special killing.The body count is high, the tension the highest, and the two killers on the loose are watching every move their pursuers make. Who is the cat, and who is the mouse? What and where is the final trap? And who survives?
This is a reread and one of my favourites from James Patterson. I love Alex Cross and the characters in these books. Patterson is such a brilliant writer.
I cheered as he finally got Soneji that evil SOB needed taking down! I do think Smith was quite easy to pick out from the start.
On to the next Alex Cross book .
Recommended

This is a reread and one of my favourites from James Patterson. I love Alex Cross and the characters in these books. Patterson is such a brilliant writer.
I cheered as he finally got Soneji that evil SOB needed taking down! I do think Smith was quite easy to pick out from the start.
On to the next Alex Cross book .
Recommended

Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Maze Runner (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Kids have one heck of an imagination, and “The Maze Runner” gives off the impression that is exactly where its plot came from. The film is an adaption of the first book in the young adult sci-fi series written by James Dashner.
In the film, the action starts right out of the gate with a boy in a cage being delivered up to a strange place. Upon his arrival, he encounters a group of boys, each of which arrived in the same way. The boys created a sort of primitive community in a beautiful green glade. Each boy is assigned a specific role in order to contribute to their survival. None of them are able to remember where they came from or their life before arriving.
The plot quickly begins to revolve around the boys who have been deemed maze runners. The glade in which the community resides is surrounded, or I should say enclosed, by a gigantic stone maze. The maze runners run through the maze trying to find out more about it in order to eventually escape. But, the maze is unsolvable because it changes shape each day and is too dangerous to stay in overnight.
The main protagonist Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) quickly interjects himself into the maze runner role, against the wishes of the community. But it isn’t long until he proves himself capable of the role when he becomes the first boy to kill what they call a “griever.” His arrival marks the beginning of new hope for the boys’ escape. At this point, one must wonder why none of the boys had ever killed a “griever” before the arrival of Thomas.
The “grievers” are cyborg spiders residing within the maze. They are the main threat keeping the boys confined to the glade, and they come off as an incredibly hokey aspect of the film. However, this may be really enjoyable for fans of corny science fiction.
I have not had a chance to read the series myself, but something tells me details were left out of the film which would have brought the quality of the plot up a level.
Unfortunately, the plot is poorly developed in crucial areas which could have made the film great, had they been further developed. For example, the creators of the strange place and the robotic spiders are not given much depth. The lack of detail in this area is what gives the execution of the plot a make-believe feel. Perhaps this part of the plot is purposefully left open to lay the ground work for the rest of the series to be made into film.
All criticism aside, what makes “The Maze Runner” enjoyable is that it stems from a unique idea. It takes the audience on a new adventure. However, I would hardly say the film aims to please a young adult audience. Its execution seems tailored for tweens. It lacks any real graphic violence, staying well within its PG rating.
I give “Maze Runner” 3 out of 5 stars.
In the film, the action starts right out of the gate with a boy in a cage being delivered up to a strange place. Upon his arrival, he encounters a group of boys, each of which arrived in the same way. The boys created a sort of primitive community in a beautiful green glade. Each boy is assigned a specific role in order to contribute to their survival. None of them are able to remember where they came from or their life before arriving.
The plot quickly begins to revolve around the boys who have been deemed maze runners. The glade in which the community resides is surrounded, or I should say enclosed, by a gigantic stone maze. The maze runners run through the maze trying to find out more about it in order to eventually escape. But, the maze is unsolvable because it changes shape each day and is too dangerous to stay in overnight.
The main protagonist Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) quickly interjects himself into the maze runner role, against the wishes of the community. But it isn’t long until he proves himself capable of the role when he becomes the first boy to kill what they call a “griever.” His arrival marks the beginning of new hope for the boys’ escape. At this point, one must wonder why none of the boys had ever killed a “griever” before the arrival of Thomas.
The “grievers” are cyborg spiders residing within the maze. They are the main threat keeping the boys confined to the glade, and they come off as an incredibly hokey aspect of the film. However, this may be really enjoyable for fans of corny science fiction.
I have not had a chance to read the series myself, but something tells me details were left out of the film which would have brought the quality of the plot up a level.
Unfortunately, the plot is poorly developed in crucial areas which could have made the film great, had they been further developed. For example, the creators of the strange place and the robotic spiders are not given much depth. The lack of detail in this area is what gives the execution of the plot a make-believe feel. Perhaps this part of the plot is purposefully left open to lay the ground work for the rest of the series to be made into film.
All criticism aside, what makes “The Maze Runner” enjoyable is that it stems from a unique idea. It takes the audience on a new adventure. However, I would hardly say the film aims to please a young adult audience. Its execution seems tailored for tweens. It lacks any real graphic violence, staying well within its PG rating.
I give “Maze Runner” 3 out of 5 stars.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Best Laid Plans in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Nicky James is a single mother who has devoted her entire adult life to raising her son, Austin - now a teenager. She works as a draftsman ("draftsperson") at an architecture firm and goes to school in the evening. She meets Lauren Thomas, a senior architect at her firm, when Lauren requests Nicky's expert help on her projects. Nicky falls quickly for the beautiful and talented woman, but quickly discovers a roadblock when she realizes Lauren isn't used to full commitment. Nicky isn't used to doing anything with less than her whole heart. Can she and Lauren get past their issues?
This was an interesting and heartfelt novel. It's told from the perspective of both women, so you can attempt to understand each of their varied point of views. I enjoyed that I could empathize with pieces of each: the tenderhearted mothering side of Nicky and the workaholic, private aspects of Lauren, for example. There are certainly some cliche aspects to the novel and a few scenes where the dialogue made me wince a bit, but overall it's refreshing to read a novel dealing with two women attempting to reconcile their issues with sexuality and love. It's certainly frustrating at points; for instance, Nicky doesn't even initially seem willing to try with Lauren and her coming out issues. I get that it must be hard, but let's face it, coming out is hard at any age! Things also get a little over-dramatic quickly: it's one date, they work together, why the freakout, etc.
Still, it's a very readable book and oddly exciting at times. I found myself pulled into Lauren and Nicky's story. Nicky and her son, especially, are just plain lovable. You can't help but root for them. There are also some hot sex scenes, which, hey, is a bonus, right? Overall, this is a compelling, fun, and sexy 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you); it is available everywhere as of 07/12/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This was an interesting and heartfelt novel. It's told from the perspective of both women, so you can attempt to understand each of their varied point of views. I enjoyed that I could empathize with pieces of each: the tenderhearted mothering side of Nicky and the workaholic, private aspects of Lauren, for example. There are certainly some cliche aspects to the novel and a few scenes where the dialogue made me wince a bit, but overall it's refreshing to read a novel dealing with two women attempting to reconcile their issues with sexuality and love. It's certainly frustrating at points; for instance, Nicky doesn't even initially seem willing to try with Lauren and her coming out issues. I get that it must be hard, but let's face it, coming out is hard at any age! Things also get a little over-dramatic quickly: it's one date, they work together, why the freakout, etc.
Still, it's a very readable book and oddly exciting at times. I found myself pulled into Lauren and Nicky's story. Nicky and her son, especially, are just plain lovable. You can't help but root for them. There are also some hot sex scenes, which, hey, is a bonus, right? Overall, this is a compelling, fun, and sexy 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you); it is available everywhere as of 07/12/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1922 starts as Wilfred James (Jane) is about to lose part of his property to his wife Arlette (Parker), Wilfred doesn’t want to lose the farmland he has raised his son Henry (Schmid) on and wants to come up with a way to keep all the land.
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/