Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Heard It in a Love Song in Books
Oct 28, 2021
Layla is recently divorced after a ten-year marriage to a man who never truly appreciated her and subjected her to constant financial and emotional stress. Once a lead singer in a rock band, Layla is now an elementary music teacher struggling to find her place in the world. One thing that brightens her day is her interactions with Josh, the father of one of her students. A single father, Josh was married to his high school sweetheart, Kimmy, for nearly twenty years. He too is trying to find his way now that he's single. Both wary about getting back into the dating grind, Layla and Josh decide to be "friends with potential." But with all their baggage, are they destined for heartbreak?
"And she wasn't lonely, not really. Layla had been lonely for years while she was married, and she'd take being alone over lonely any day."
I didn't dislike this book, but it wasn't the sweeping romance I was hoping for. This one redefined slow burner, as Josh and Layla sloowly made their way toward one another. Most of this is the format--told from both Layla and Josh's point of view, each chapter breaks off to delve into how that particular's character's marriage fell apart. So we may get a few moments of them in the present and then--boom--it quickly flashes back to Josh and Kimmy in high school or Layla and her ex-husband, Liam, meeting when Layla is singing in her band. Each piece is just a snippet, slowly parsed out per chapter and building up to the end of the marriage, so both the past and the present is a build-up. I admire the style, but wow... everything takes time. A lot of time! It made the story feel quite plodding at times.
And, I just couldn't quite find the spark between Layla and Josh. Individually, they were great people, and I liked and rooted for their characters to move on from their past relationships. Together, I just didn't feel that they had "it"--that special something that really makes you want a particular couple to succeed. I certainly desired for each to find themselves again, but I didn't necessarily need it to be with one another. I did, however, have great fondness for Norton, the older dog Josh adopts, and whom Layla often dog-sits. So there you go.
This isn't a bad book, and I know lots of people who enjoyed it. It received a 3-star rating from me, which is *not* a poor rating. It just wasn't what I was hoping for, and I had wanted more passion. But if you enjoy a character-driven read, especially one that really delves into the characters' pasts, you'll find a lot to love here. (Also the cover is simply gorgeous.)
"And she wasn't lonely, not really. Layla had been lonely for years while she was married, and she'd take being alone over lonely any day."
I didn't dislike this book, but it wasn't the sweeping romance I was hoping for. This one redefined slow burner, as Josh and Layla sloowly made their way toward one another. Most of this is the format--told from both Layla and Josh's point of view, each chapter breaks off to delve into how that particular's character's marriage fell apart. So we may get a few moments of them in the present and then--boom--it quickly flashes back to Josh and Kimmy in high school or Layla and her ex-husband, Liam, meeting when Layla is singing in her band. Each piece is just a snippet, slowly parsed out per chapter and building up to the end of the marriage, so both the past and the present is a build-up. I admire the style, but wow... everything takes time. A lot of time! It made the story feel quite plodding at times.
And, I just couldn't quite find the spark between Layla and Josh. Individually, they were great people, and I liked and rooted for their characters to move on from their past relationships. Together, I just didn't feel that they had "it"--that special something that really makes you want a particular couple to succeed. I certainly desired for each to find themselves again, but I didn't necessarily need it to be with one another. I did, however, have great fondness for Norton, the older dog Josh adopts, and whom Layla often dog-sits. So there you go.
This isn't a bad book, and I know lots of people who enjoyed it. It received a 3-star rating from me, which is *not* a poor rating. It just wasn't what I was hoping for, and I had wanted more passion. But if you enjoy a character-driven read, especially one that really delves into the characters' pasts, you'll find a lot to love here. (Also the cover is simply gorgeous.)
Darren Hayman recommended The Haden Triplets by The Haden Triplets in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated New Year's Eve (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
If you ask me, holiday movies have lost their way over the past few years. Not that there haven’t been any good holiday movies recently, but let’s face it… “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” is no “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I think that New Year’s Eve brings us back to the feel good holiday movies that the film industry has been missing.
The cast in this is huge. Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Carla Gugino, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Sofia Vergara, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Hilary Swank and Josh Duhamel are all players in this film. This is only the tip of the ice berg too as there are many smaller roles with cameos from big names.
New Year’s Eve follows several different story lines that are all connected in some way, whether small or big, the stories do intertwine. Michelle Pfieffer plays a meek, timid office worker who finally has had it with her miserable job. She enlists the help of bike messenger Zac Efron to help her complete all the tasks on her “bucket list” type resolution list. Robert De Niro plays a dying cancer patient whose wish is to see the ball drop one last time, and Halle Berry is the nurse that is attending him. Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel play an expectant couple who are in a race with another couple to have the first baby of the New Year in order to win the Hospital’s contest and receive $25,000.
Katherine Heigl plays a chef for a catering company that has landed a huge gig at one of the largest parties in New York. Sofia Vergara is her sous chef who is humorously fanatic over Jon Bon Jovi. Jon Bon Jovi plays a version of himself (a musician) who happens to be Katherine Heigl’s ex-boyfriend. Ashton Kutcher is very anti-New Year’s and during his protest of the holiday ends up becoming stuck in an elevator with Lea Michele, a new tenant in his building who is on her way to a new job as a backup singer.
Sarah Jessica Parker is a single mother who gets to spend the New Year with her daughter, played by Abigail Breslin. But Abigail has her sights set on spending New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Hilary Swank plays the newly appointed Vice President of the Times Square Alliance, which for the intents of this movie means that she’s in charge of the Times Square ball dropping and runs into a few problems along the way. Josh Duhamel is desperately trying to make it from his cousin’s wedding to New York City in time to give an important speech at his company’s party, as well as make another very important meeting.
I found this movie to be a great date movie. It’s cute and funny, but without being overly obnoxious as some holiday movies try to be. It is very clever in its story telling, and makes great use of the stellar cast. Though I personally could have done without the Robert De Niro story line, I really enjoyed the film overall. It is great to see a wholesome Holiday movie that does not have to rely on gags and clichés (not too much anyway).
The cast in this is huge. Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Carla Gugino, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Sofia Vergara, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Hilary Swank and Josh Duhamel are all players in this film. This is only the tip of the ice berg too as there are many smaller roles with cameos from big names.
New Year’s Eve follows several different story lines that are all connected in some way, whether small or big, the stories do intertwine. Michelle Pfieffer plays a meek, timid office worker who finally has had it with her miserable job. She enlists the help of bike messenger Zac Efron to help her complete all the tasks on her “bucket list” type resolution list. Robert De Niro plays a dying cancer patient whose wish is to see the ball drop one last time, and Halle Berry is the nurse that is attending him. Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel play an expectant couple who are in a race with another couple to have the first baby of the New Year in order to win the Hospital’s contest and receive $25,000.
Katherine Heigl plays a chef for a catering company that has landed a huge gig at one of the largest parties in New York. Sofia Vergara is her sous chef who is humorously fanatic over Jon Bon Jovi. Jon Bon Jovi plays a version of himself (a musician) who happens to be Katherine Heigl’s ex-boyfriend. Ashton Kutcher is very anti-New Year’s and during his protest of the holiday ends up becoming stuck in an elevator with Lea Michele, a new tenant in his building who is on her way to a new job as a backup singer.
Sarah Jessica Parker is a single mother who gets to spend the New Year with her daughter, played by Abigail Breslin. But Abigail has her sights set on spending New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Hilary Swank plays the newly appointed Vice President of the Times Square Alliance, which for the intents of this movie means that she’s in charge of the Times Square ball dropping and runs into a few problems along the way. Josh Duhamel is desperately trying to make it from his cousin’s wedding to New York City in time to give an important speech at his company’s party, as well as make another very important meeting.
I found this movie to be a great date movie. It’s cute and funny, but without being overly obnoxious as some holiday movies try to be. It is very clever in its story telling, and makes great use of the stellar cast. Though I personally could have done without the Robert De Niro story line, I really enjoyed the film overall. It is great to see a wholesome Holiday movie that does not have to rely on gags and clichés (not too much anyway).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Wedding Ringer (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When I first heard the title of this movie, I probably thought what 99% of the population thought… that sounds like The Wedding Singer. Without even knowing anything about the film I had this preconceived notion that it was about a jeweler for weddings who is the best jeweler in town! Sarcasm is so hard to convey, but picture the end of that last sentence dripping with it.
It seems like Kevin Hart is in everything these days. He is the big name to know, and on everyone’s short list (rim shot). But it’s for good reason. They guy is funny. So I had a little hope The Wedding Ringer. Especially when you partner him with Josh Gad, a person more commonly known for being the supporting actor. Who is still a supporting actor in this film, but you wouldn’t know it.
For those that don’t know, TWR is about Doug Harris (Gad), a bridegroom who finds himself in a little bit of a pickle. It’s 10 days before his wedding, and he still has yet to figure out how to tell Gretchen (Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting), his bride-to-be, that his Best Man, and entire wedding party, are entirely fictitious. Never fear, for Harris is lead to Jimmy Callahan (Hart), proprietor of The Best Man, Inc. Only Jimmy doesn’t know exactly what he’s getting into as he makes an attempt at the fabled “Golden Tuxedo”, a myth in the business of being able to provide a 7-man grooms party in 10 days. Hilarity and hijinks ensue.
This movie was far better than I imagined it would be. With edgy humor, and great cameo appearances, the film delivers. Not afraid to make inside jokes about the actors’ previous roles, and not focusing on racial humor that some may anticipate, the film did not disappoint. The chemistry between Hart and Gad was good. It wasn’t great, but you can tell there was some. Hearing Cuoco-Sweeting curse after watching her for years on network television was a bit of a shock at first, but it certainly seemed natural. It was just so hard to accept the fact that she played her character so well, being the opposite end of the spectrum from some of the things she is most known for.
As I mentioned earlier, there were some great cameos throughout the film. Without giving away the big surprises, be on the lookout for Josh Peck, Cloris Leachman, Mimi Rogers, Whitney Cummings and Jeffrey Ross (just to name a few). Surprisingly enough, the edgiest jokes did not even come from the main cast, but more the supporting actors. They did an excellent job of spreading the humor. And while soundtrack is not a huge focus for comedies, I thought it a nice touch that many of the selections were more than fitting for the scenes.
Was the movie formulaic? You betcha? I called the ending of the movie a mere 20 minutes in. Are all of the jokes original? No. There were some great ones that I have never heard before, and the ones that you’ve seen a lot were delivered in fresh, creative way. Is it a movie that’s going to win awards? Likely not, but it’s definitely worth checking out for date night.
Bottom line, the movie surpassed my expectations by a mile. It was nice to see a movie that doesn’t rely on the obvious jokes and humor you would expect given the cast and setting. This is definitely one that will be making its way into my collection when released for home viewing, and I may head out and take a gander at it again this weekend.
It seems like Kevin Hart is in everything these days. He is the big name to know, and on everyone’s short list (rim shot). But it’s for good reason. They guy is funny. So I had a little hope The Wedding Ringer. Especially when you partner him with Josh Gad, a person more commonly known for being the supporting actor. Who is still a supporting actor in this film, but you wouldn’t know it.
For those that don’t know, TWR is about Doug Harris (Gad), a bridegroom who finds himself in a little bit of a pickle. It’s 10 days before his wedding, and he still has yet to figure out how to tell Gretchen (Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting), his bride-to-be, that his Best Man, and entire wedding party, are entirely fictitious. Never fear, for Harris is lead to Jimmy Callahan (Hart), proprietor of The Best Man, Inc. Only Jimmy doesn’t know exactly what he’s getting into as he makes an attempt at the fabled “Golden Tuxedo”, a myth in the business of being able to provide a 7-man grooms party in 10 days. Hilarity and hijinks ensue.
This movie was far better than I imagined it would be. With edgy humor, and great cameo appearances, the film delivers. Not afraid to make inside jokes about the actors’ previous roles, and not focusing on racial humor that some may anticipate, the film did not disappoint. The chemistry between Hart and Gad was good. It wasn’t great, but you can tell there was some. Hearing Cuoco-Sweeting curse after watching her for years on network television was a bit of a shock at first, but it certainly seemed natural. It was just so hard to accept the fact that she played her character so well, being the opposite end of the spectrum from some of the things she is most known for.
As I mentioned earlier, there were some great cameos throughout the film. Without giving away the big surprises, be on the lookout for Josh Peck, Cloris Leachman, Mimi Rogers, Whitney Cummings and Jeffrey Ross (just to name a few). Surprisingly enough, the edgiest jokes did not even come from the main cast, but more the supporting actors. They did an excellent job of spreading the humor. And while soundtrack is not a huge focus for comedies, I thought it a nice touch that many of the selections were more than fitting for the scenes.
Was the movie formulaic? You betcha? I called the ending of the movie a mere 20 minutes in. Are all of the jokes original? No. There were some great ones that I have never heard before, and the ones that you’ve seen a lot were delivered in fresh, creative way. Is it a movie that’s going to win awards? Likely not, but it’s definitely worth checking out for date night.
Bottom line, the movie surpassed my expectations by a mile. It was nice to see a movie that doesn’t rely on the obvious jokes and humor you would expect given the cast and setting. This is definitely one that will be making its way into my collection when released for home viewing, and I may head out and take a gander at it again this weekend.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?