Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
I think that I actually prefer A Dame to Kill For over the first Sin City...
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
colin... (64 KP) rated Uncut Gems (2019) in Movies
Sep 30, 2020
The fact that the Safdie's landed Christmas is still absolutely wild to me. There were so many people in our theater that looked like they just DIDN'T belong there.
First things first, I'd like to get my negatives out of the way really quickly. My issue with this film, and why I view it as lesser than Good Time is one simple reason, and that is heart. I felt every moment of Good Time pulsating through my bones and truly felt for the ride that Connie went through. I saw the pain and remorse and emotion in his eyes grow with every passing moment. In Uncut Gems, I don't get the same gravitas and power of the emotion that is provided in Good Time. I never truly saw any remorse in Howard, nor that he really cared about anything else but himself, so when the emotional beats come when we are supposed to feel bad for him, I have a rather hard time doing that. He's not necessarily an unlikable guy, he just doesn't have that anti-hero vibe that Connie supplied. That is the main facet that significantly detracted from my appreciation for this film.
That being said, everything else is stellar. The grittiness of the cinematography works so well with the world we are being immersed in, with even the long shots being very unsteady and dirty looking in the way that the characters are framed. As everyone else is saying, Sandler puts on a magnificent performance (although if he gets nominated and Robert Pattinson didn't for Good Time, I'll be pretty frustrated) that reminds the public of why he demands the level of respect her does. However, the standout here for me is Julia Fox, who makes this film funnier than it has any right to be. She really carries herself in a way that I felt like I had met her before, or at least someone exactly like her. Going off of that, the humor really really works, so much so that I could argue that this is a black comedy instead of the crime thriller it is listed as. Everything from the situational comedy to the witty lines of dialogue just hits you in the chest.
Overall, a wonderful film that I hope will push the Safdie's into the mainstream like Hereditary did to Aster.
First things first, I'd like to get my negatives out of the way really quickly. My issue with this film, and why I view it as lesser than Good Time is one simple reason, and that is heart. I felt every moment of Good Time pulsating through my bones and truly felt for the ride that Connie went through. I saw the pain and remorse and emotion in his eyes grow with every passing moment. In Uncut Gems, I don't get the same gravitas and power of the emotion that is provided in Good Time. I never truly saw any remorse in Howard, nor that he really cared about anything else but himself, so when the emotional beats come when we are supposed to feel bad for him, I have a rather hard time doing that. He's not necessarily an unlikable guy, he just doesn't have that anti-hero vibe that Connie supplied. That is the main facet that significantly detracted from my appreciation for this film.
That being said, everything else is stellar. The grittiness of the cinematography works so well with the world we are being immersed in, with even the long shots being very unsteady and dirty looking in the way that the characters are framed. As everyone else is saying, Sandler puts on a magnificent performance (although if he gets nominated and Robert Pattinson didn't for Good Time, I'll be pretty frustrated) that reminds the public of why he demands the level of respect her does. However, the standout here for me is Julia Fox, who makes this film funnier than it has any right to be. She really carries herself in a way that I felt like I had met her before, or at least someone exactly like her. Going off of that, the humor really really works, so much so that I could argue that this is a black comedy instead of the crime thriller it is listed as. Everything from the situational comedy to the witty lines of dialogue just hits you in the chest.
Overall, a wonderful film that I hope will push the Safdie's into the mainstream like Hereditary did to Aster.
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated When He Was Wicked (Bridgertons, #6) in Books
Jan 9, 2022
I was surprised with how different this book was from all the others, but in a good way. It meant that I didn’t get bored as the others are fairly similar looking back on them.
We start 2 years into Francesca’s marriage, which is completely different to the other books as we follow them as they are looking for their future spouse. Then rather unfortunately, her beloved husband - John dies, leaving her widowed only 2 years into their marriage.
His cousin, and both Francesca and John’s best friend, Michael is also shocked to the core at his death and at his newfound Earldom. Michael has also been in love with Francesca since he met her, but out of loyalty to his cousin has never told anyone of this. In previous books, I would have guessed that Michael would have pursued Francesca straight away, but I was glad that I was wrong and it made it a much better read that he didn’t.
This book deals with a few different medical issues, which at the end Julia Quinn does explain more about and confirmed my suspicions as to why John died. It was definitely such a different pace to this book and it was nice to change up the style slightly. I enjoyed the excerpts of letters at the start of each chapter (although still not quite as good as Lady Whistledown’s comments!) and it definitely gave more of an insight into what they were thinking, especially as it included letters that weren’t sent at all.
Before this book, we didn’t know too much about Francesca, other than she’d married an Earl and spent a lot of time in Scotland, but this book made her more than just a mention and you realised that she is a bit different from her siblings and probably quite enjoys being away from everyone. I also liked how it brought together the events in both Colin’s story and Eloise’s story as they happen so close together, I think it ties the stories up quite neatly as you sometimes forget during this book that Francesca was a Bridgerton since she doesn’t spend a lot of time with them in this book.
This has definitely firmly cemented its place in my top 3 of this series and I’m hoping that the next book is just as good to read.
We start 2 years into Francesca’s marriage, which is completely different to the other books as we follow them as they are looking for their future spouse. Then rather unfortunately, her beloved husband - John dies, leaving her widowed only 2 years into their marriage.
His cousin, and both Francesca and John’s best friend, Michael is also shocked to the core at his death and at his newfound Earldom. Michael has also been in love with Francesca since he met her, but out of loyalty to his cousin has never told anyone of this. In previous books, I would have guessed that Michael would have pursued Francesca straight away, but I was glad that I was wrong and it made it a much better read that he didn’t.
This book deals with a few different medical issues, which at the end Julia Quinn does explain more about and confirmed my suspicions as to why John died. It was definitely such a different pace to this book and it was nice to change up the style slightly. I enjoyed the excerpts of letters at the start of each chapter (although still not quite as good as Lady Whistledown’s comments!) and it definitely gave more of an insight into what they were thinking, especially as it included letters that weren’t sent at all.
Before this book, we didn’t know too much about Francesca, other than she’d married an Earl and spent a lot of time in Scotland, but this book made her more than just a mention and you realised that she is a bit different from her siblings and probably quite enjoys being away from everyone. I also liked how it brought together the events in both Colin’s story and Eloise’s story as they happen so close together, I think it ties the stories up quite neatly as you sometimes forget during this book that Francesca was a Bridgerton since she doesn’t spend a lot of time with them in this book.
This has definitely firmly cemented its place in my top 3 of this series and I’m hoping that the next book is just as good to read.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
Comments on revenge are best kept on the screen.
I'd completely forgotten the furore about Liam Neeson's comments back last February during the press-tour preceding the film's release. In discussing the destructive feelings of revenge experienced by his character, Nels Coxman, Neeson revealed something he did 40 years ago: after the rape of a friend by "a black man", Neeson went out on the streets to find another "black man" and do them harm. (As a fellow Ballymena-born man, David Moody (from the "Mark and Dave" blog) has an interesting theory about this... that it was not a "rascist" statement in the true sense, but something else entirely. See here - ).
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Wonder in Books
Apr 9, 2019
August Pullman is not your typical 10 year old. He has never been to school, he has had countless surgeries, and he has a rare facial deformity. But despite all of that, his outlook on life is very positive. This year, Auggie, as he likes to be called, and his family have decided it is time for him to go to school. He has been homeschooled all of this time because of the countless doctor's appointments and medical tests he had to do that it wasn't practical. But he's finally reached the stage of his life where none of that is necessary. Of course, he and his parents are a little skeptical about how this will all play out. How will the other children treat him and will he be able to make new friends?
I have had this book on my TBR for a while. When I saw that the movie was coming out, I pushed it closer to the top. My daughter, who is also 10 was very interested in seeing this movie as well. I told her we had to read the book first. So we read it together. I love that we both have this passion for reading and that we can talk about this book together and then enjoy the movie.
This book brought me to tears several times. First of all, the way they describe Auggie in the book is horrible. His ears look like cauliflower, his eyes come too far down, his cheeks look punched in, his mouth is like a turtle. When he is first introduced to school, Mr. Tushman has a few kids show him around the school. Only one, Jack, seems like a really good kid.
The book follows Auggie and his family and friends through his first year at school, Beecher Prep. The book is mostly told from Auggie's point of view, but also there is a section for his sister Olivia(Via); the first person to sit with him at lunch, Summer; Jack, one of the first people Auggie meets at the school; Justin, a friend of Olivia's; and Miranda, another friend of Olivia's who gave Auggie a special gift one time that he cherished.
This book will touch your heart and soul and it shows you the importance of treating people as you would like to be treated despite what they may look like.
I can't wait for my daughter to finish the book so we can go and see the movie together. Although I'm already having some issues seeing as the book describes Auggie's mom as a Brazilian and Julia Roberts is not...
I have had this book on my TBR for a while. When I saw that the movie was coming out, I pushed it closer to the top. My daughter, who is also 10 was very interested in seeing this movie as well. I told her we had to read the book first. So we read it together. I love that we both have this passion for reading and that we can talk about this book together and then enjoy the movie.
This book brought me to tears several times. First of all, the way they describe Auggie in the book is horrible. His ears look like cauliflower, his eyes come too far down, his cheeks look punched in, his mouth is like a turtle. When he is first introduced to school, Mr. Tushman has a few kids show him around the school. Only one, Jack, seems like a really good kid.
The book follows Auggie and his family and friends through his first year at school, Beecher Prep. The book is mostly told from Auggie's point of view, but also there is a section for his sister Olivia(Via); the first person to sit with him at lunch, Summer; Jack, one of the first people Auggie meets at the school; Justin, a friend of Olivia's; and Miranda, another friend of Olivia's who gave Auggie a special gift one time that he cherished.
This book will touch your heart and soul and it shows you the importance of treating people as you would like to be treated despite what they may look like.
I can't wait for my daughter to finish the book so we can go and see the movie together. Although I'm already having some issues seeing as the book describes Auggie's mom as a Brazilian and Julia Roberts is not...
Maddi Zoe (6 KP) rated Wonder (2017) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
acting (2 more)
storyline
underlying message
Cute messages tugging at your heart strings
Based on the best-selling novel of the same name, Wonder, directed by Stephen Chbosky, is a wonderfully endearing and uplifting story about a boy, Auggie Pullman (Jacob Tremblay), who was born with Treacher Collins syndrome and has had several surgeries leaving him with facial deformities.
The movie starts as he is entering into fifth-grade, and actually going to school for the first time as he has previously been home schooled by his mother (Julia Roberts). He is understandably scared about not making friends, or being ridiculed by his classmates, but with the help of his Mum and Dad (Owen Wilson) he braves going to school and meets new people.
There are many moments of sadness, as you would expect, but there are also moments of great joy. I found myself crying from start to finish, riding on a rollercoaster of emotions.
There are a few mini storylines about other characters that get given the spotlight at different times as well, which is a nice change to when some films focus on just the one person, because we get to see other characters backgrounds, and why they act how they do.
The casting is brilliant, Tremblay plays Auggie excellently, bringing both emotion and sass to the character. He has been in a fair few things before, such as Before I Wake, but this role will definitely boost him into the spotlight.
Roberts and Wilson as the parents is also an excellent choice, Roberts gives an emotive performance, and it’s great to see Wilson in a serious role, whilst still bringing some light comic relief.
The cast has a lot of young actors, but there isn’t one that stands out as being stiff or unnatural, they are all brilliant and help to bring the feel of the movie together. The relationships between all the characters is brought to life really well by the actors.
The writing is brilliant, although it is based on a book so the story is there already, but the screenwriters, Chbosky, Steve Conrad and Jack Thorne, put it together for the screen really well.
There are some stand out quotes, that also come from the book, that make you stop and think, and the teacher, Mr Browne (Daveed Diggs), teaches the class about precepts such as ‘When given the choice between being right or being kind, choose kind’.
Overall, it’s a well-rounded family movie, that may change your outlook on some things in life. With such great casting, writing and direction, I’d be very surprised if it didn’t do well during awards season.
The movie starts as he is entering into fifth-grade, and actually going to school for the first time as he has previously been home schooled by his mother (Julia Roberts). He is understandably scared about not making friends, or being ridiculed by his classmates, but with the help of his Mum and Dad (Owen Wilson) he braves going to school and meets new people.
There are many moments of sadness, as you would expect, but there are also moments of great joy. I found myself crying from start to finish, riding on a rollercoaster of emotions.
There are a few mini storylines about other characters that get given the spotlight at different times as well, which is a nice change to when some films focus on just the one person, because we get to see other characters backgrounds, and why they act how they do.
The casting is brilliant, Tremblay plays Auggie excellently, bringing both emotion and sass to the character. He has been in a fair few things before, such as Before I Wake, but this role will definitely boost him into the spotlight.
Roberts and Wilson as the parents is also an excellent choice, Roberts gives an emotive performance, and it’s great to see Wilson in a serious role, whilst still bringing some light comic relief.
The cast has a lot of young actors, but there isn’t one that stands out as being stiff or unnatural, they are all brilliant and help to bring the feel of the movie together. The relationships between all the characters is brought to life really well by the actors.
The writing is brilliant, although it is based on a book so the story is there already, but the screenwriters, Chbosky, Steve Conrad and Jack Thorne, put it together for the screen really well.
There are some stand out quotes, that also come from the book, that make you stop and think, and the teacher, Mr Browne (Daveed Diggs), teaches the class about precepts such as ‘When given the choice between being right or being kind, choose kind’.
Overall, it’s a well-rounded family movie, that may change your outlook on some things in life. With such great casting, writing and direction, I’d be very surprised if it didn’t do well during awards season.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Among the Ten Thousand Things in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Review on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/2016/01/oh-im-becoming-ghost-in-your-life-and.html">blog here</a>.
Jack Shanley is a fairly well-known New York artist. He's a married father of two. He's also an adulterer, who carries on affairs in his New York studio. This comes back to bite him, so to speak, when one of his exes sends his wife a large box chronicling their entire relationship - emails, texts, sexts - all printed and contained in this one box. The box is delivered to Jack's apartment and opened by his eleven-year-old daughter, Kay, and fifteen-year-old son, Simon. They show the box to their mother, Deb, forcing her to confront the many flaws of her husband. Meanwhile, Kay and Simon are (justifiably) traumatized by the box's contents and the possible dissolution of their parents' marriage.
This was an odd book. As a child of divorce, a lot of this book hit home, and I felt myself feeling a great deal of sympathy for Deb, Kay, and Simon - especially as they disappear off to their vacation home, of sorts, to recover. (Alas, no vacation home when I was a child.) Julia Pierpoint is certainly a strong writer and her prose is lovely and well-crafted. Still, the book often just seems a little flat.
The strangest part of this book, to me, as many other reviewers have pointed out - is that is constructed in four parts - parts one and three basically deal with the immediate aftermath of the box's delivery and how the family reacts. Parts two and four tell us what happen to Jack, Deb, Kay, and Simon for their entire lives. It's an odd author tool, and I'm not sure it entirely works. For me, I was caught up enough in Part One's tale and then found Part Two incredibly jarring - even more so to be dumped back into the current story at Part Three. Part Four repeats Two a bit and tells a bit more about what happens to the characters. It's an odd device, and I really would have preferred not to have had Part Two stuck in there at all. I suppose it's an artistic overreach that appeals to critics but not most actual readers.
Overall, I found the book an intriguing look at a family dealing with a father's betrayal. Not a ton happens - it's not that sort of book - but Pierpont's writing is strong, and I liked Simon and Kay. I am not sure the book is one that will leave a lasting impression with me, though.
Jack Shanley is a fairly well-known New York artist. He's a married father of two. He's also an adulterer, who carries on affairs in his New York studio. This comes back to bite him, so to speak, when one of his exes sends his wife a large box chronicling their entire relationship - emails, texts, sexts - all printed and contained in this one box. The box is delivered to Jack's apartment and opened by his eleven-year-old daughter, Kay, and fifteen-year-old son, Simon. They show the box to their mother, Deb, forcing her to confront the many flaws of her husband. Meanwhile, Kay and Simon are (justifiably) traumatized by the box's contents and the possible dissolution of their parents' marriage.
This was an odd book. As a child of divorce, a lot of this book hit home, and I felt myself feeling a great deal of sympathy for Deb, Kay, and Simon - especially as they disappear off to their vacation home, of sorts, to recover. (Alas, no vacation home when I was a child.) Julia Pierpoint is certainly a strong writer and her prose is lovely and well-crafted. Still, the book often just seems a little flat.
The strangest part of this book, to me, as many other reviewers have pointed out - is that is constructed in four parts - parts one and three basically deal with the immediate aftermath of the box's delivery and how the family reacts. Parts two and four tell us what happen to Jack, Deb, Kay, and Simon for their entire lives. It's an odd author tool, and I'm not sure it entirely works. For me, I was caught up enough in Part One's tale and then found Part Two incredibly jarring - even more so to be dumped back into the current story at Part Three. Part Four repeats Two a bit and tells a bit more about what happens to the characters. It's an odd device, and I really would have preferred not to have had Part Two stuck in there at all. I suppose it's an artistic overreach that appeals to critics but not most actual readers.
Overall, I found the book an intriguing look at a family dealing with a father's betrayal. Not a ton happens - it's not that sort of book - but Pierpont's writing is strong, and I liked Simon and Kay. I am not sure the book is one that will leave a lasting impression with me, though.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Oct 29, 2020 (Updated Oct 29, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a starting note, please please please watch this film with the audio set to Polish with subtitles. Netflix started playing the dubbed version for me, and I managed about 30 seconds worth of cheesy American voice over before I couldn't stand it any longer. It's 100% more natural the way it was intended.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Write Yourself Happy: The Art of Positive Journalling in Books
Jun 5, 2019
With the book Write Yourself Happy: The Art of Positive Journalling, Megan C. Hayes reveals just how we can use practical and scientifically proven methods to increase our happiness through journalling. She’s an academic in Positive Psychology and Creative Writing, and that shows via her knowledge and understanding in this well-written and enlightening book.
I enjoy the process of writing and feel like I am quite a creative person. I’ve read many books like this, and ‘Artist’s Way’ by Julia Cameron and the companion workbook , are just two of them, so I was really happy to learn about this, and keen to read it myself.
The first thing I cannot help but tell you is how the cover has been printed in a way that is is raised in some places, making it very tactile. And yes, I can’t help touching it! The second thing I noticed, before I even began to read it, was how the pages inside are as colourful as the front cover, and filled with the same pastel shades within.
I found it quite amazing how we can use diary writing to discover more about ourselves, overcome difficulties and experience a positive way to reflect on our lives through both good and bad times. It makes sense, when you think about it, how talking to someone about problems can help, so why not express yourself in the form of writing? And this is just what this book encourages you to do in a way that we can reflect on our writing to positively assess our day. It’s not about bigging yourself up and writing only positive things, it’s about really letting go and understanding the psychology behind the case studies and ‘take-away’ lessons to practice for yourself.
Megan has an encouraging, reassuring and uplifting tone, and I really enjoy reading about the psychological and beneficial aspects of journalling. The author uses eight of our most commonly experienced and life-affirming emotions to journal about; joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride awe and love. Now some of these may sound a bit new-agey and put some of you off, but it’s set out in a down-to-earth way, that I found very inspiring and not preachy at all.
To conclude, I’d like to explain that writing this way is like reading an engrossing book. When you’re totally immersed it’s like you can actually feel the emotions, experiences and senses of your character. In the same way, writing down evokes similar sensations, memories, smells and feelings. It’s no wonder this positive journalling is a scientifically proven way to support our wellbeing, through personal expression and creativity.
Write Yourself Happy is a thoroughly researched, empowering, positive read.
I enjoy the process of writing and feel like I am quite a creative person. I’ve read many books like this, and ‘Artist’s Way’ by Julia Cameron and the companion workbook , are just two of them, so I was really happy to learn about this, and keen to read it myself.
The first thing I cannot help but tell you is how the cover has been printed in a way that is is raised in some places, making it very tactile. And yes, I can’t help touching it! The second thing I noticed, before I even began to read it, was how the pages inside are as colourful as the front cover, and filled with the same pastel shades within.
I found it quite amazing how we can use diary writing to discover more about ourselves, overcome difficulties and experience a positive way to reflect on our lives through both good and bad times. It makes sense, when you think about it, how talking to someone about problems can help, so why not express yourself in the form of writing? And this is just what this book encourages you to do in a way that we can reflect on our writing to positively assess our day. It’s not about bigging yourself up and writing only positive things, it’s about really letting go and understanding the psychology behind the case studies and ‘take-away’ lessons to practice for yourself.
Megan has an encouraging, reassuring and uplifting tone, and I really enjoy reading about the psychological and beneficial aspects of journalling. The author uses eight of our most commonly experienced and life-affirming emotions to journal about; joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride awe and love. Now some of these may sound a bit new-agey and put some of you off, but it’s set out in a down-to-earth way, that I found very inspiring and not preachy at all.
To conclude, I’d like to explain that writing this way is like reading an engrossing book. When you’re totally immersed it’s like you can actually feel the emotions, experiences and senses of your character. In the same way, writing down evokes similar sensations, memories, smells and feelings. It’s no wonder this positive journalling is a scientifically proven way to support our wellbeing, through personal expression and creativity.
Write Yourself Happy is a thoroughly researched, empowering, positive read.