Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Belko Experiment (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
A group of Americans and other foreign Nationals have been hired to work for a multi-national company in Columbia for a company named Belko. The Company offers housing, a car, company credit card and great benefits so people are more than willing to sign up even when company policy mandates that any foreign workers must get a microchip to help track them in the event of a kidnapping.
In the new film “The Belko Experiment” audiences are taken on a psychological thrill ride about what happens when corporate life takes a nightmare turn.
Michael Milch (John Gallagher Jr.), heads to work one morning and finds that the local employees are being sent home by a new and very stern faced and heavily armed security force.
One in their modern high rise office, he and his other workers guess it is some sort of security drill and nothing to worry about. His boss Barry Norris (Tony Goldwyn) claims to be unaware of any changes and what is behind them but promises to look into it.
When the building’s security shutters unexpectedly close and all communications go down, the staff thinks that it is simply another security drill or a test. However a voice over the communication system tells the workers that they must kill two of their group in thirty minutes or suffer the consequences. The group thinks this is all some kind of prank until four people drop dead from the implants in their head which also contain an explosive.
Factions soon form as people are unsure what to do next and whom to trust. In a nod to Lord of the Flies, we see what happens when conventions of society break down and how people often revert to a base and brutal nature for survival. When the mysterious voice then tells them that 30 of the group must die or 60 will be killed, the stakes and the action really kick into high gear.
The film is at times brutal but not as gratuitous as other films. What it does well is mix characters that many might be able to relate to so you can find yourself wondering how you would react in a situation like the one presented. As the body count and tensions rise, the characters do become a bit like cannon fodder as we are not given enough to care about their survival.
The film was written by James Gunn who said the idea came to him in a dream. Gunn is clearly busy with his work on the “Guardians of the Galaxy” series so Director Greg McLean directed the film and has created an interesting film that does borrow from other films, as it does bring to mind “The Hunger Games” and “Cube” but it does deliver a good dose of escapist entertainment.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/19/the-belko-experiment/
In the new film “The Belko Experiment” audiences are taken on a psychological thrill ride about what happens when corporate life takes a nightmare turn.
Michael Milch (John Gallagher Jr.), heads to work one morning and finds that the local employees are being sent home by a new and very stern faced and heavily armed security force.
One in their modern high rise office, he and his other workers guess it is some sort of security drill and nothing to worry about. His boss Barry Norris (Tony Goldwyn) claims to be unaware of any changes and what is behind them but promises to look into it.
When the building’s security shutters unexpectedly close and all communications go down, the staff thinks that it is simply another security drill or a test. However a voice over the communication system tells the workers that they must kill two of their group in thirty minutes or suffer the consequences. The group thinks this is all some kind of prank until four people drop dead from the implants in their head which also contain an explosive.
Factions soon form as people are unsure what to do next and whom to trust. In a nod to Lord of the Flies, we see what happens when conventions of society break down and how people often revert to a base and brutal nature for survival. When the mysterious voice then tells them that 30 of the group must die or 60 will be killed, the stakes and the action really kick into high gear.
The film is at times brutal but not as gratuitous as other films. What it does well is mix characters that many might be able to relate to so you can find yourself wondering how you would react in a situation like the one presented. As the body count and tensions rise, the characters do become a bit like cannon fodder as we are not given enough to care about their survival.
The film was written by James Gunn who said the idea came to him in a dream. Gunn is clearly busy with his work on the “Guardians of the Galaxy” series so Director Greg McLean directed the film and has created an interesting film that does borrow from other films, as it does bring to mind “The Hunger Games” and “Cube” but it does deliver a good dose of escapist entertainment.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/19/the-belko-experiment/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Be Cool (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been ten years since audiences last saw Chili Palmer (John Travolta), a former criminal who uses his criminal experiences to become a successful film producer. The how and why Chili made this transition was documented in the 1995 film Get Shorty.
As the film opens, Chili is discussing his frustrations with the film industry with his associate Tommy (James Woods), at a sidewalk cafe. The conversation is interrupted by a barrage of bullets that leaves Tommy dead and Chili with more questions than answers. It seems that Tommy was taken down by a criminal organization and as such, his record company now finds itself in dire straits as his widow Edie (Uma Thurman), struggles to keep the company afloat.
Since Chili is friends with Edie and wants to move to the music business, he uses this opportunity to introduce a new prodigy named Linda Moon (Christina Milian) to her and prepares to record her.
Things become complicated when Chili discovers that Linda is under contract to some very shady characters, including Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) who, like Chili, has a criminal past and is not above using thugs to eliminate or intimidate those into doing his bidding. His right hand man is the hood obsessed Raji (Vince Vaughn) and his massive yet closeted muscle Elliott (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson).
If you are not confused yet, don’t worry as the plot will be come even more complex when record producer Sin LaSalle (Cedric the Entertainer), demands $300,000 in owed money from Tommy, due in under a week to keep his boys from taking out Chili and ruining Edie’s company.
The great thing about Be Cool is that no matter how many characters come and go from the every changing plot, it is always well paced and funny, and does not lose momentum.
The audience, like most of the characters, is forced to figure things out as they happen with the exception being Chili who seems to have things figured out even before he takes the necessary steps to resolve the situation.
The cast seems to be having a great time playing their parts and Travolta and Thurman seem to have a very easy going and natural chemistry, especially when they follow up their Pulp Fiction dance with a spirited number. The film also boasts many cameos and I will refrain from spoiling them here.
The highlight of the film would have to be The Rock as he daringly pokes fun at his tough guy persona and signature raised eyebrow by playing the identity confused Elliott who is more at ease belting out torch songs than he is at bashing heads.
The only real issue with the film was that Thurman’s character did not always have much to do aside from standing around looking pretty and being the supportive love interest in the film.
That being said, if you do not mind a twisting plot, over the top characters, and some goofiness, than Be Cool is just the film for you.
As the film opens, Chili is discussing his frustrations with the film industry with his associate Tommy (James Woods), at a sidewalk cafe. The conversation is interrupted by a barrage of bullets that leaves Tommy dead and Chili with more questions than answers. It seems that Tommy was taken down by a criminal organization and as such, his record company now finds itself in dire straits as his widow Edie (Uma Thurman), struggles to keep the company afloat.
Since Chili is friends with Edie and wants to move to the music business, he uses this opportunity to introduce a new prodigy named Linda Moon (Christina Milian) to her and prepares to record her.
Things become complicated when Chili discovers that Linda is under contract to some very shady characters, including Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) who, like Chili, has a criminal past and is not above using thugs to eliminate or intimidate those into doing his bidding. His right hand man is the hood obsessed Raji (Vince Vaughn) and his massive yet closeted muscle Elliott (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson).
If you are not confused yet, don’t worry as the plot will be come even more complex when record producer Sin LaSalle (Cedric the Entertainer), demands $300,000 in owed money from Tommy, due in under a week to keep his boys from taking out Chili and ruining Edie’s company.
The great thing about Be Cool is that no matter how many characters come and go from the every changing plot, it is always well paced and funny, and does not lose momentum.
The audience, like most of the characters, is forced to figure things out as they happen with the exception being Chili who seems to have things figured out even before he takes the necessary steps to resolve the situation.
The cast seems to be having a great time playing their parts and Travolta and Thurman seem to have a very easy going and natural chemistry, especially when they follow up their Pulp Fiction dance with a spirited number. The film also boasts many cameos and I will refrain from spoiling them here.
The highlight of the film would have to be The Rock as he daringly pokes fun at his tough guy persona and signature raised eyebrow by playing the identity confused Elliott who is more at ease belting out torch songs than he is at bashing heads.
The only real issue with the film was that Thurman’s character did not always have much to do aside from standing around looking pretty and being the supportive love interest in the film.
That being said, if you do not mind a twisting plot, over the top characters, and some goofiness, than Be Cool is just the film for you.
JT (287 KP) rated Trance (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
"Amnesia is bollocks.” That’s the thought of one of four crooks tasked with trying to discover the whereabouts of a Goya painting worth £25,000,000 from the memory of James McAvoy‘s character Simon.
Simon, an art auctioneer has a problem, well he has a few in Danny Boyle’s latest mind bending heist thriller, Trance. He’s addicted to gambling and in return for wiping his debts clear he agrees to help steel the Goya painting from an auction house for Franck (Vincent Cassel) and his criminal entourage.
In an aggressive and highly charged opening sequence, which sees Simon describe various methods in which paintings have been stolen before from the smash and grab of the old school era to the more high tech, the heist is well under way.
Simon is in the thick of the action as Franck and his accomplices take charge, and as Franck is making off with the painting he’s challenged by Simon who receives a knock to the head rendering his memory practically useless.
After staggering about through all the chaos he ends up in hospital having his brain drilled and drained and any short term memory with it.
With methods of torture clearly not working the gang turn their attention to another, hypnotherapy, and seek help from Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) who attempts to guide Simon through hypnosis in an attempt to find out exactly where he left the painting.
And so begins a journey of discovery, deceit, greed and lust as everything is not what it seems and loyalties will be tested to the fullest.
Simon’s hypnotic journey takes him through the idyllic French countryside, to a church filled with stolen paintings to the slick London underworld as he tries in vein to piece together his broken memory, but what unfolds is not what he or any of us are probably expecting.
Simon, Franck and Elizabeth are all pretty interwoven as characters, it’s almost hard to work out who is playing each other off against the other, whose dream we’re in and at what level. You’ll find that you care about all three of them in a different way when something more is revealed about them.
The remaining trio of Franck’s gang are probably around for far too long than they need to be, but are removed for the final heart pounding third act, which accompanied by a brilliant soundtrack really intensifies the finale.
Trance is written by John Hodge and he’s reunited with Danny Boyle again having previously worked together on such films as Shallow Grave and Trainspotting, where at the crux of it all they too are heist films in a different guise.
Trance is well shot, Danny Boyle is in his element directing a dark, disturbing and at times a head scratching film, I’ve not had this much fun from a Boyle film since Shallow Grave.
Simon, an art auctioneer has a problem, well he has a few in Danny Boyle’s latest mind bending heist thriller, Trance. He’s addicted to gambling and in return for wiping his debts clear he agrees to help steel the Goya painting from an auction house for Franck (Vincent Cassel) and his criminal entourage.
In an aggressive and highly charged opening sequence, which sees Simon describe various methods in which paintings have been stolen before from the smash and grab of the old school era to the more high tech, the heist is well under way.
Simon is in the thick of the action as Franck and his accomplices take charge, and as Franck is making off with the painting he’s challenged by Simon who receives a knock to the head rendering his memory practically useless.
After staggering about through all the chaos he ends up in hospital having his brain drilled and drained and any short term memory with it.
With methods of torture clearly not working the gang turn their attention to another, hypnotherapy, and seek help from Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) who attempts to guide Simon through hypnosis in an attempt to find out exactly where he left the painting.
And so begins a journey of discovery, deceit, greed and lust as everything is not what it seems and loyalties will be tested to the fullest.
Simon’s hypnotic journey takes him through the idyllic French countryside, to a church filled with stolen paintings to the slick London underworld as he tries in vein to piece together his broken memory, but what unfolds is not what he or any of us are probably expecting.
Simon, Franck and Elizabeth are all pretty interwoven as characters, it’s almost hard to work out who is playing each other off against the other, whose dream we’re in and at what level. You’ll find that you care about all three of them in a different way when something more is revealed about them.
The remaining trio of Franck’s gang are probably around for far too long than they need to be, but are removed for the final heart pounding third act, which accompanied by a brilliant soundtrack really intensifies the finale.
Trance is written by John Hodge and he’s reunited with Danny Boyle again having previously worked together on such films as Shallow Grave and Trainspotting, where at the crux of it all they too are heist films in a different guise.
Trance is well shot, Danny Boyle is in his element directing a dark, disturbing and at times a head scratching film, I’ve not had this much fun from a Boyle film since Shallow Grave.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated 47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Shark Movie That Struggles To Stay Afloat
47 Meters Down Uncaged is a 2019 survival/horror movie directed by Johannes Robert and written by Robert and Ernest Riera with producers James Harris, Mark Lane and Robert Jones. It was produced by They Fyzz Facility and distributed by Entertainment Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Corinne Foxx, Sophie Nelisse, Brianne Tju and Sistaine Stallone.
Mia (Sophie Nelisse), has had trouble fitting in living in Mexico which includes trouble with girls at school and adjusting to living with her father, step-mother (Nia Long) and sister. Three teenagers, Sasha (Corinne Foxx) her step-sister and her two friends convince her to go swimming with them at a secret lagoon rather than go on a glass bottom boat tour. The lagoon happens to be near a sunken Mayan city where Mia's father Grant (John Corbett) is working. The girls grab some scuba gear and decide to seize this opportunity to see the discovery for themselves and find that it is the hunting ground for deadly great white sharks. With their air supply running out and having to navigate the labyrinth of tunnels the girls find themselves in a race against time and the deadly sharks to try and survive.
This movie was okay but I thought it was going to be better. I hadn't seen the first one so I don't know if they are connected in anyway but I believe they are not. I wanted to see a good shark movie especially since during shark week a while back I had seen a lot of shark shows this year and the movie they did called Capsized which was pretty decent. This movie started off good but failed to set the tension in a gripping way. I didn't like the fact that since they were swimming in caves the lighting was dark and didn't allow for a lot of visuals. It was good for mood setting and ambiance but I thought it was a little gimmicky when they used the flares and it changed everything red. I say that because the CGI of the sharks left me underwhelmed as well. The sharks were supposed to be blind for having evolved or lived in caves the whole time and also adjusted to be more sensitive to sounds. To me the CGI looked unbelievable and threw off the emergence from enjoying the movie. They could have been better or the way they built the tension could have been better. The movie did have a couple of frightening "jump scares", one of which surprised and got me. For some reason I really didn't like the ending, for me it was the main character acting out of character and then there being to many "jump scares" back to back at the end. If you see it you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyways I give this movie a 5/10.
Mia (Sophie Nelisse), has had trouble fitting in living in Mexico which includes trouble with girls at school and adjusting to living with her father, step-mother (Nia Long) and sister. Three teenagers, Sasha (Corinne Foxx) her step-sister and her two friends convince her to go swimming with them at a secret lagoon rather than go on a glass bottom boat tour. The lagoon happens to be near a sunken Mayan city where Mia's father Grant (John Corbett) is working. The girls grab some scuba gear and decide to seize this opportunity to see the discovery for themselves and find that it is the hunting ground for deadly great white sharks. With their air supply running out and having to navigate the labyrinth of tunnels the girls find themselves in a race against time and the deadly sharks to try and survive.
This movie was okay but I thought it was going to be better. I hadn't seen the first one so I don't know if they are connected in anyway but I believe they are not. I wanted to see a good shark movie especially since during shark week a while back I had seen a lot of shark shows this year and the movie they did called Capsized which was pretty decent. This movie started off good but failed to set the tension in a gripping way. I didn't like the fact that since they were swimming in caves the lighting was dark and didn't allow for a lot of visuals. It was good for mood setting and ambiance but I thought it was a little gimmicky when they used the flares and it changed everything red. I say that because the CGI of the sharks left me underwhelmed as well. The sharks were supposed to be blind for having evolved or lived in caves the whole time and also adjusted to be more sensitive to sounds. To me the CGI looked unbelievable and threw off the emergence from enjoying the movie. They could have been better or the way they built the tension could have been better. The movie did have a couple of frightening "jump scares", one of which surprised and got me. For some reason I really didn't like the ending, for me it was the main character acting out of character and then there being to many "jump scares" back to back at the end. If you see it you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyways I give this movie a 5/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Its adult humor is also incredibly poignant (2 more)
Blood and gore is Troma levels of insanity
King Shark and Polka Dot Man
Not as fun on repeat viewings (1 more)
Is a little too similar to Guardians of the Galaxy
I'm a Motherf@#$ing Superhero!
You could probably get away with calling James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad an R-rated version of Guardians of the Galaxy, but it isn’t entirely fair or correct. It’s a complicated comparison much like Gunn’s status with Marvel Studios that allowed him to make the film in the first place and whether or not The Suicide Squad is a sequel or a reboot to David Ayer’s 2016 film.
Gunn has always had a knack for getting gory or gross or raunchy if the opportunity presented itself. The Suicide Squad almost feels like a clean, strike that, blood-splattered slate for the filmmaker. Gunn had complete creative control while making The Suicide Squad and it shows; not only in its graphic content and excessive vulgarity, but also in the characters Gunn chose to be in the film. Nearly everyone has been replaced from the previous Suicide Squad film except for Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), and Amanda Waller (Viola Davis). The new characters are mostly unknown or barely known villains, which makes the fact that nearly all of them are expendable all the more intriguing.
While Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad are two different films, there are some undeniable similarities. The cast of The Suicide Squad is insanely stacked, but you have to know by now that three quarters of these characters die in horribly gruesome ways. Witnessing who lives and who dies is half the fun of the film, so that won’t be spoiled here. But The Suicide Squad has a team of five characters that are grouped together and featured more than anyone else. It’s a lot like how Guardians began with Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and Groot. These five characters also end up being the ones you love the most.
Gunn also has a thing for taking a group of assholes and giving them meaning. In the tenth season of South Park, Eric Cartman meets Bart Simpson face to face. Bart has always been a troublemaker and a prankster, but Cartman ground up Scott Tenorman’s parents, slapped that ground parent meat in some chili, and made Scott eat his own parents. The comparison between Guardians and The Suicide Squad is a lot like the difference between Bart Simpson and Eric Cartman. The Suicide Squad features straight up murderers, demented psychopaths, and whatever the hell Weasel is.
Not unlike his other comic book film work though, Gunn typically takes what would be unlikable characters on their own and finds a purpose for them once they’re with other outcasts that they can relate to. There is a ton of heart in The Suicide Squad. You fall in love with King Shark because he’s trying to read books upside down and use one of his fingers as mustache as a brilliant disguise, but you don’t feel for him until he reveals that he’s never had a friend. Sebastian, Ratcatcher II’s go-to rat, is adorable because he waves at, offers leaves to, and flocks toward Bloodsport even though he’s afraid of rats. There’s still this camaraderie in The Suicide Squad. It may be broken and gory, but it’s still camaraderie.
There are some unusual choices that Gunn made with The Suicide Squad though. They originally wanted Will Smith to come back as Deadshot, but supposedly cast Idris Elba to replace Smith in the role. Then they backtracked and made Elba Bloodsport. The odd thing is that both Bloodsport and Peacemaker are exactly the same as Deadshot. Peacemaker seems to be a bit crazier, but both characters have a thing for making anything a weapon in their hands and having precise aim. Bloodsport is even doing everything in the film for the sake of his daughter. It gives Warner Bros a chance to bring Smith back as Deadshot down the line, but having all three characters in the same film would be serious overkill.
Harley Quinn’s action sequences in The Suicide Squad are better and more satisfying than anything Margot Robbie has done with the role. Polka Dot Man is low-key the coolest character of the film despite seeing his mom in every person that he meets. Many will likely point to the blood, the gore, and all of the F-bombs shouted mostly among teammates as Gunn cleansing his Marvel/Disney palette so to speak. However, the major difference is Starro. Starro is a giant blue and purple starfish with an eyeball in the middle of his body. He is essentially a kaiju, but he shoots miniature versions of himself out of his armpits which latch onto people’s faces, kills them, and turns their corpses into zombie-like slaves that do his bidding; all while Starro gets bigger and bigger in the process. The abridged version of this starfish heavy explanation is that Starro is fucking terrifying. The entire world is basically on the verge of bowing down to a Godzilla sized starfish that has the ability to shoot armies of himself out of his Goddamn armpits! The MCU featuring a monster or creature of any kind that is that scary is slim to none.
The Suicide Squad is an uproarious extravaganza filled with grotesque nom-noms, full-on naked dick shots, and John Cena in tighty-whities and it’s is the most fun you’ll have with an R-rated comic book film in a theater (or at home with HBO Max) since Deadpool. It’s the first comic book film to come along in a good long while that’s charming because of how weird it is. As a final note, stay/watch after the credits. James Gunn and John Cena are doing an 8-episode Peacemaker TV series for HBO Max due sometime in 2022, so that may or may not be teased in some capacity.
Gunn has always had a knack for getting gory or gross or raunchy if the opportunity presented itself. The Suicide Squad almost feels like a clean, strike that, blood-splattered slate for the filmmaker. Gunn had complete creative control while making The Suicide Squad and it shows; not only in its graphic content and excessive vulgarity, but also in the characters Gunn chose to be in the film. Nearly everyone has been replaced from the previous Suicide Squad film except for Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), and Amanda Waller (Viola Davis). The new characters are mostly unknown or barely known villains, which makes the fact that nearly all of them are expendable all the more intriguing.
While Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad are two different films, there are some undeniable similarities. The cast of The Suicide Squad is insanely stacked, but you have to know by now that three quarters of these characters die in horribly gruesome ways. Witnessing who lives and who dies is half the fun of the film, so that won’t be spoiled here. But The Suicide Squad has a team of five characters that are grouped together and featured more than anyone else. It’s a lot like how Guardians began with Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and Groot. These five characters also end up being the ones you love the most.
Gunn also has a thing for taking a group of assholes and giving them meaning. In the tenth season of South Park, Eric Cartman meets Bart Simpson face to face. Bart has always been a troublemaker and a prankster, but Cartman ground up Scott Tenorman’s parents, slapped that ground parent meat in some chili, and made Scott eat his own parents. The comparison between Guardians and The Suicide Squad is a lot like the difference between Bart Simpson and Eric Cartman. The Suicide Squad features straight up murderers, demented psychopaths, and whatever the hell Weasel is.
Not unlike his other comic book film work though, Gunn typically takes what would be unlikable characters on their own and finds a purpose for them once they’re with other outcasts that they can relate to. There is a ton of heart in The Suicide Squad. You fall in love with King Shark because he’s trying to read books upside down and use one of his fingers as mustache as a brilliant disguise, but you don’t feel for him until he reveals that he’s never had a friend. Sebastian, Ratcatcher II’s go-to rat, is adorable because he waves at, offers leaves to, and flocks toward Bloodsport even though he’s afraid of rats. There’s still this camaraderie in The Suicide Squad. It may be broken and gory, but it’s still camaraderie.
There are some unusual choices that Gunn made with The Suicide Squad though. They originally wanted Will Smith to come back as Deadshot, but supposedly cast Idris Elba to replace Smith in the role. Then they backtracked and made Elba Bloodsport. The odd thing is that both Bloodsport and Peacemaker are exactly the same as Deadshot. Peacemaker seems to be a bit crazier, but both characters have a thing for making anything a weapon in their hands and having precise aim. Bloodsport is even doing everything in the film for the sake of his daughter. It gives Warner Bros a chance to bring Smith back as Deadshot down the line, but having all three characters in the same film would be serious overkill.
Harley Quinn’s action sequences in The Suicide Squad are better and more satisfying than anything Margot Robbie has done with the role. Polka Dot Man is low-key the coolest character of the film despite seeing his mom in every person that he meets. Many will likely point to the blood, the gore, and all of the F-bombs shouted mostly among teammates as Gunn cleansing his Marvel/Disney palette so to speak. However, the major difference is Starro. Starro is a giant blue and purple starfish with an eyeball in the middle of his body. He is essentially a kaiju, but he shoots miniature versions of himself out of his armpits which latch onto people’s faces, kills them, and turns their corpses into zombie-like slaves that do his bidding; all while Starro gets bigger and bigger in the process. The abridged version of this starfish heavy explanation is that Starro is fucking terrifying. The entire world is basically on the verge of bowing down to a Godzilla sized starfish that has the ability to shoot armies of himself out of his Goddamn armpits! The MCU featuring a monster or creature of any kind that is that scary is slim to none.
The Suicide Squad is an uproarious extravaganza filled with grotesque nom-noms, full-on naked dick shots, and John Cena in tighty-whities and it’s is the most fun you’ll have with an R-rated comic book film in a theater (or at home with HBO Max) since Deadpool. It’s the first comic book film to come along in a good long while that’s charming because of how weird it is. As a final note, stay/watch after the credits. James Gunn and John Cena are doing an 8-episode Peacemaker TV series for HBO Max due sometime in 2022, so that may or may not be teased in some capacity.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
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)