Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Pixie (2020) in Movies
Oct 25, 2020
Knockabout comedy-thriller set in Northern Ireland. 'What do men see in irritating free spirits?' wondered Julia Roberts in a Tom Hanks movie a few years ago, and the question is still a live one: Olivia Cooke plays Pixie, who is not quite Holly Golightly recast as a feminist criminal mastermind, but getting there. Nearly everyone is entranced by her, including apparently the director, cameraman, and cinematographer, despite the fact she seems to be almost completely amoral: ripping off drug dealers, swindling her friends, and cold-blooded murder all seem to be part of her repertoire. Nevertheless she and her latest enamoured stooges zip about Ireland to a jangly western-style soundtrack while Alec Baldwin phones in a cameo as a gun-toting gangster-priest.
Surely people have got to get over this obsession with making Tarantino pastiches sooner or later? This one has the odd funny moment, but a lot of the jokes don't land and the plot constantly seems to be on the verge of unravelling. Olivia Cooke carries the film with predictable grace, but I felt almost commanded to like her without good enough reason: the film also suggests there's a thin line between idealising a character and objectifying them, as a rather lubricious tone occasionally threatens to manifest. Passably watchable in the end, but has no connection to reality: feels like a script somebody wrote in 1995 and then spent twenty-odd years finding the funding for. Cooke in particular deserves better.
Surely people have got to get over this obsession with making Tarantino pastiches sooner or later? This one has the odd funny moment, but a lot of the jokes don't land and the plot constantly seems to be on the verge of unravelling. Olivia Cooke carries the film with predictable grace, but I felt almost commanded to like her without good enough reason: the film also suggests there's a thin line between idealising a character and objectifying them, as a rather lubricious tone occasionally threatens to manifest. Passably watchable in the end, but has no connection to reality: feels like a script somebody wrote in 1995 and then spent twenty-odd years finding the funding for. Cooke in particular deserves better.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hook (1991) in Movies
Jul 7, 2019
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: James V Hart, Nick Castle, Malia Scotch Marmo (Screenplay) J.M. Barrie (Books)
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, Julia Roberts, Bob Hoskins, Maggie Smith, Caroline Goodall, Charlie Korsmo, Amber Scott
Plot: When Captain Hook kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to challenge his old enemy.
Tagline – What if Peter Pan grew up?
Runtime: 2 Hours 22 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Fun-Filled Fantasy
Story: Hook starts as we meet businessman Peter Banning (Williams) who has started over working leading to his children become distant, his wife Moira (Goodall) forces him to visit his Granny Wendy (Smith) in London for Christmas, where she sees how much Peter has changed since his childhood of never wanting to grow up.
Captain Hook (Hoffman) takes Peter’s children, which sees Peter needing to be pushed into returning to Neverland, a place he has long forgotten about, with Tinkerbell (Roberts) taking him there only for Hook to be left disappointed by the man Peter has become, Tinkerbell has three days to restore Peter’s faith in Neverland to save his children.
Thoughts on Hook
Characters – Peter Banning is a lawyer that has been neglecting his family, his Grandmother sees him losing his young heart that made her take him in, in the first place, Peter must confront his past to save his children from his old nemesis Captain Hook in Neverland, a place he has long since forgotten about. Peter has become everything he once hated as a child and shows how at times parents can get buried in their work. Captain Hook has been waiting for the day Peter Pan returns, he is left disappointed when he does return a shell of the boy that left, giving him three days to prepare for a battle, while having his own plan to get revenge on Peter. Tinkerbell comes to Peter to bring him back to Neverland, she helps transform him back to his original self, while showing him what he is still fighting for.
Performances – Robin Williams was a great choice for this role, he gets to manages the serious adult side of everything as well as the playful side of Peter Pan with ease being able to swap between the two whenever he needs to. Dustin Hoffman as the villainous Hook has great enjoyment in this role where he does get to play along with his character. Julia Roberts does all she needs to do without being as involved as the lead too.
Story – The story follows an older Peter Pan that must return to Neverland to save his own children after his old nemesis Captain Hook takes them there. This spin on the Peter Pan story is a wonderful on because see Peter grown up becoming everything he promised he wouldn’t shows us just how difficult being an adult can be, you will turn your back on parts of your childhood become what you once feared. This was always the meaning behind Peter Pan in the first place, finding an escape from the busy lives, now an adult must use this to save his own relationship with his children and family, which is what is important in life.
Adventure/Comedy/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film takes Peter to Neverland to relive moments of his childhood in a fantasy battle against pirates with fairies on their side. We do get elements of comedy, but even Robin Williams is held back from going into his full routine like we saw in Aladdin.
Settings – The film uses the same settings that we know from Peter Pan, the London setting might well be a more modern one, but Neverland hasn’t aged a day since Peter has left.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Pop culture references.
Final Thoughts – This is a magical version of Peter Pan’s adventures showing how life can change for adults who never thought they would be when they were children.
Overall: Magical adventure.
Rating
Writer: James V Hart, Nick Castle, Malia Scotch Marmo (Screenplay) J.M. Barrie (Books)
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, Julia Roberts, Bob Hoskins, Maggie Smith, Caroline Goodall, Charlie Korsmo, Amber Scott
Plot: When Captain Hook kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to challenge his old enemy.
Tagline – What if Peter Pan grew up?
Runtime: 2 Hours 22 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Fun-Filled Fantasy
Story: Hook starts as we meet businessman Peter Banning (Williams) who has started over working leading to his children become distant, his wife Moira (Goodall) forces him to visit his Granny Wendy (Smith) in London for Christmas, where she sees how much Peter has changed since his childhood of never wanting to grow up.
Captain Hook (Hoffman) takes Peter’s children, which sees Peter needing to be pushed into returning to Neverland, a place he has long forgotten about, with Tinkerbell (Roberts) taking him there only for Hook to be left disappointed by the man Peter has become, Tinkerbell has three days to restore Peter’s faith in Neverland to save his children.
Thoughts on Hook
Characters – Peter Banning is a lawyer that has been neglecting his family, his Grandmother sees him losing his young heart that made her take him in, in the first place, Peter must confront his past to save his children from his old nemesis Captain Hook in Neverland, a place he has long since forgotten about. Peter has become everything he once hated as a child and shows how at times parents can get buried in their work. Captain Hook has been waiting for the day Peter Pan returns, he is left disappointed when he does return a shell of the boy that left, giving him three days to prepare for a battle, while having his own plan to get revenge on Peter. Tinkerbell comes to Peter to bring him back to Neverland, she helps transform him back to his original self, while showing him what he is still fighting for.
Performances – Robin Williams was a great choice for this role, he gets to manages the serious adult side of everything as well as the playful side of Peter Pan with ease being able to swap between the two whenever he needs to. Dustin Hoffman as the villainous Hook has great enjoyment in this role where he does get to play along with his character. Julia Roberts does all she needs to do without being as involved as the lead too.
Story – The story follows an older Peter Pan that must return to Neverland to save his own children after his old nemesis Captain Hook takes them there. This spin on the Peter Pan story is a wonderful on because see Peter grown up becoming everything he promised he wouldn’t shows us just how difficult being an adult can be, you will turn your back on parts of your childhood become what you once feared. This was always the meaning behind Peter Pan in the first place, finding an escape from the busy lives, now an adult must use this to save his own relationship with his children and family, which is what is important in life.
Adventure/Comedy/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film takes Peter to Neverland to relive moments of his childhood in a fantasy battle against pirates with fairies on their side. We do get elements of comedy, but even Robin Williams is held back from going into his full routine like we saw in Aladdin.
Settings – The film uses the same settings that we know from Peter Pan, the London setting might well be a more modern one, but Neverland hasn’t aged a day since Peter has left.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Pop culture references.
Final Thoughts – This is a magical version of Peter Pan’s adventures showing how life can change for adults who never thought they would be when they were children.
Overall: Magical adventure.
Rating
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Basic Instinct (1992) in Movies
Apr 17, 2021
Love The Way You Lie
Basic Instinct- is a excellent erotic thriller. Both Micheal Douglas and Sharon Stone are excellent in it.
The plot: The mysterious Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), a beautiful crime novelist, becomes a suspect when she is linked to the brutal death of a rock star. Investigated by homicide detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), Catherine seduces him into an intense relationship. Meanwhile, the murder case becomes increasingly complicated when more seemingly connected deaths occur and Nick's psychologist and lover, Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn), appears to be another suspect.
Douglas recommended Kim Basinger for the role of Catherine Tramell, but Basinger declined. He also proposed Julia Roberts, Greta Scacchi and Meg Ryan but they also turned down the role, as did Michelle Pfeiffer, Geena Davis, Kathleen Turner, Ellen Barkin, and Mariel Hemingway. Verhoeven considered Demi Moore.
She was paid $500,000, a low sum relative to the film's production budget. Michael Douglas was determined to have another A-list actress starring in the movie with him; worried to take the risk on his own, he was quoted as saying "I need someone to share the risks of this movie. [...] I don't want to be up there all by myself. There's going to be a lot of shit flying around.
Basic Instinct is rated R for "strong violence and sensuality, and for drug use and language". It was initially given a commercially restrictive NC-17 rating by the MPAA for “graphic depictions of extremely explicit violence, sexual content, and strong language”, but under pressure from TriStar and Carolco, Verhoeven cut 35–40 seconds to gain an R rating.
Its a excellent thriller and a must watch.
The plot: The mysterious Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), a beautiful crime novelist, becomes a suspect when she is linked to the brutal death of a rock star. Investigated by homicide detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), Catherine seduces him into an intense relationship. Meanwhile, the murder case becomes increasingly complicated when more seemingly connected deaths occur and Nick's psychologist and lover, Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn), appears to be another suspect.
Douglas recommended Kim Basinger for the role of Catherine Tramell, but Basinger declined. He also proposed Julia Roberts, Greta Scacchi and Meg Ryan but they also turned down the role, as did Michelle Pfeiffer, Geena Davis, Kathleen Turner, Ellen Barkin, and Mariel Hemingway. Verhoeven considered Demi Moore.
She was paid $500,000, a low sum relative to the film's production budget. Michael Douglas was determined to have another A-list actress starring in the movie with him; worried to take the risk on his own, he was quoted as saying "I need someone to share the risks of this movie. [...] I don't want to be up there all by myself. There's going to be a lot of shit flying around.
Basic Instinct is rated R for "strong violence and sensuality, and for drug use and language". It was initially given a commercially restrictive NC-17 rating by the MPAA for “graphic depictions of extremely explicit violence, sexual content, and strong language”, but under pressure from TriStar and Carolco, Verhoeven cut 35–40 seconds to gain an R rating.
Its a excellent thriller and a must watch.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Money Monster (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Growing up, whenever a political or economic scandal was featured on the news, my father would utter the words, “Follow the money.” This phrase was made famous by “Deep Throat” during the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down the Nixon Administration. In the film Money Monster which stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts, this is a question that we start to ask ourselves as a financial investment show is taken captive by a disgruntled investor while it is airing live.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Pelican Brief (1993) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Story: The Pelican Brief starts when two Supreme Court Justices are assassinated, bring the country to a stand still in shock. Law student Darby Shaw (Roberts) puts together a theory of who was behind the assassinations, which she presents to her boyfriend and professor Thomas (Shepard), one theory that has turned his head.
After the theory is presented to the people investigating, Darby and Tom start getting targeted, when journalist friend of one of the victims Gray Grantham (Washington) start investigating a bigger conspiracy going on within the government, one that will put both their lives in danger.
Thoughts on The Pelican Brief
Characters – Darby is a law student having an affair with her professor, after the assassinations, she comes up with a theory about who was behind them, which sees her become a target for the people behind it, she doesn’t know who to trust seeing anybody she does get killed, her last resort is Gray. Gray is a journalist that has worked with the victims in the past, he is willing to dig for the truth, he does become Darby’s last resort and works with her to expose the truth which will become the biggest story of his career. Thomas Callahan is the connection between Darby and the people involved, he is a professor, with her theory interesting him at his own risk. We do go through many different political figures in search for the truth here, each one has their own agenda and could be involved.
Performances – Julia Roberts in the leading role is strong as she gives us a strong independent figure that has been running for her life trying to expose the truth. Denzel Washington was a growing star at the time of release, here he makes us believe that he is a star in the role which is filled with the determination and skill to start ahead of the game. The rest of the cast are all strong with them each getting the moments to shine with them all having the importance to the story.
Story – The story follows a law student and journalist that must team up to investigate the assassinations of the two members of the supreme court that puts both their lives in danger as it could bring the political system down. This story does give us plenty of swerves along the way as it does keep us guessing just to where everything will be going, it does show us how a political system will be used to gain an advantage and can be used to cover up anything that will incriminate them. The idea of the cover up shows just how corruption can effect so many lives and is ready to be exposed.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film shows just how the laws can be bent to help the people who want to make the most money, how much they will do to cover up their secrets and how corrupt they will become. The mystery side of the film show just how the corruption needs to be investigated, how far up the chain it could go too.
Settings – The film is set in a couple of major cities in America Washington and New York mostly, which show just how the big companies will use the political power to make the most money.
Scene of the Movie – The video.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is too long, with too many characters at times.
Final Thoughts – This is a political thriller that does keep you guessing, it shows how far up the chain corruption can go and how covering it up can be the only option.
Overall: Political thriller 101
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/19/the-pelican-brief-1993/
After the theory is presented to the people investigating, Darby and Tom start getting targeted, when journalist friend of one of the victims Gray Grantham (Washington) start investigating a bigger conspiracy going on within the government, one that will put both their lives in danger.
Thoughts on The Pelican Brief
Characters – Darby is a law student having an affair with her professor, after the assassinations, she comes up with a theory about who was behind them, which sees her become a target for the people behind it, she doesn’t know who to trust seeing anybody she does get killed, her last resort is Gray. Gray is a journalist that has worked with the victims in the past, he is willing to dig for the truth, he does become Darby’s last resort and works with her to expose the truth which will become the biggest story of his career. Thomas Callahan is the connection between Darby and the people involved, he is a professor, with her theory interesting him at his own risk. We do go through many different political figures in search for the truth here, each one has their own agenda and could be involved.
Performances – Julia Roberts in the leading role is strong as she gives us a strong independent figure that has been running for her life trying to expose the truth. Denzel Washington was a growing star at the time of release, here he makes us believe that he is a star in the role which is filled with the determination and skill to start ahead of the game. The rest of the cast are all strong with them each getting the moments to shine with them all having the importance to the story.
Story – The story follows a law student and journalist that must team up to investigate the assassinations of the two members of the supreme court that puts both their lives in danger as it could bring the political system down. This story does give us plenty of swerves along the way as it does keep us guessing just to where everything will be going, it does show us how a political system will be used to gain an advantage and can be used to cover up anything that will incriminate them. The idea of the cover up shows just how corruption can effect so many lives and is ready to be exposed.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film shows just how the laws can be bent to help the people who want to make the most money, how much they will do to cover up their secrets and how corrupt they will become. The mystery side of the film show just how the corruption needs to be investigated, how far up the chain it could go too.
Settings – The film is set in a couple of major cities in America Washington and New York mostly, which show just how the big companies will use the political power to make the most money.
Scene of the Movie – The video.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is too long, with too many characters at times.
Final Thoughts – This is a political thriller that does keep you guessing, it shows how far up the chain corruption can go and how covering it up can be the only option.
Overall: Political thriller 101
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/19/the-pelican-brief-1993/
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...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Snow White has certainly been receiving a lot of attention this year and it’s been hard to ignore two films competing with each other to win the accolade of best cinema adaptation.
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I Let You Go in Books
Feb 1, 2018
One rainy evening, an accident occurs on a quiet neighborhood street. Walking home from school with his mother, young Jacob is hit by a car, and killed. Even worse, the car quickly backs up and drives away, leaving Jacob's mother shattered and Detective Inspector Ray Stevens and his team, particularly eager young DC Kate, to seek out answers.
With her world ruined by the accident, Jenna Gray seeks refuge by the coast. She finds a small cottage, gets a dog, and tries to escape the nightmares of the accident that haunt both her dreams and waking hours. Meanwhile, Ray and Kate are forced to close Jacob's case, no closer to the suspect than when they started. But the two remain undaunted, working on the case in their off hours, and an anniversary plea one year after the accident turns up some potential leads. What exactly happened that rainy night? Will justice ever come for Jacob--and peace for Jenna?
This was an excellent thriller-- a real surprise, honestly. The beginning of the novel started out slow, and was so horrendously sad, what with Jacob's accident and his mother's terrible grief. It was one of several book's I'd read lately involving the death of a child, and I was so saddened that I almost set it aside. I'm glad I didn't though, because while the book is gut-wrenchingly sad, it's excellent, tense, and suspenseful. Divided into several parts, things pick up immensely at the end of the first part, when Mackintosh throws in an excellent plot twist (I shan't say anymore so as not to ruin it).
Mackintosh is excellent at conveying Jenna's anguish and the sadness that the accident causes. We also have a side-plot of Ray and his feelings toward his subordinate, Kate. Ray's home life is unbalanced: he's dealing with issues with his son, Tom, and his wife. These are a bit distracting at times, but serve to humanize him as well. The police subplot (watching them try to piece things together) is interesting, also. In fact, the book alternates in perspectives: we hear from Ray, Jenna, and one more character. In part 2, we go back in time for some of the characters, but remain in the present with Ray and Kate as they (much like us, the readers) try to solve this crime. It's an interesting technique and works surprisingly well. Jenna is a complicated character, but a well-drawn one.
Overall, I quite enjoyed this book. I won't spoil anything, but I will say that there is definitely a trigger for domestic abuse/violence, so please be forewarned for that. There's a character in the novel who reminds me of the husband in that creepy Julia Roberts' film "Sleeping with the Enemy" (I'm totally dating myself here). As such I was up late reading one night, completely creeped out. However, that's the sign of an excellent thriller in my opinion. I raced through the last 2/3 of the book and really wasn't disappointed. There are several more twists, but they actually are pretty believable, not outlandish like in many thrillers. Definitely recommend this one (with the abuse caveat thrown in). A unique psychological thriller that's worth your time, for sure.
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley - thank you! The U.S. edition is available everywhere on 5/3/16. You can find a review of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
With her world ruined by the accident, Jenna Gray seeks refuge by the coast. She finds a small cottage, gets a dog, and tries to escape the nightmares of the accident that haunt both her dreams and waking hours. Meanwhile, Ray and Kate are forced to close Jacob's case, no closer to the suspect than when they started. But the two remain undaunted, working on the case in their off hours, and an anniversary plea one year after the accident turns up some potential leads. What exactly happened that rainy night? Will justice ever come for Jacob--and peace for Jenna?
This was an excellent thriller-- a real surprise, honestly. The beginning of the novel started out slow, and was so horrendously sad, what with Jacob's accident and his mother's terrible grief. It was one of several book's I'd read lately involving the death of a child, and I was so saddened that I almost set it aside. I'm glad I didn't though, because while the book is gut-wrenchingly sad, it's excellent, tense, and suspenseful. Divided into several parts, things pick up immensely at the end of the first part, when Mackintosh throws in an excellent plot twist (I shan't say anymore so as not to ruin it).
Mackintosh is excellent at conveying Jenna's anguish and the sadness that the accident causes. We also have a side-plot of Ray and his feelings toward his subordinate, Kate. Ray's home life is unbalanced: he's dealing with issues with his son, Tom, and his wife. These are a bit distracting at times, but serve to humanize him as well. The police subplot (watching them try to piece things together) is interesting, also. In fact, the book alternates in perspectives: we hear from Ray, Jenna, and one more character. In part 2, we go back in time for some of the characters, but remain in the present with Ray and Kate as they (much like us, the readers) try to solve this crime. It's an interesting technique and works surprisingly well. Jenna is a complicated character, but a well-drawn one.
Overall, I quite enjoyed this book. I won't spoil anything, but I will say that there is definitely a trigger for domestic abuse/violence, so please be forewarned for that. There's a character in the novel who reminds me of the husband in that creepy Julia Roberts' film "Sleeping with the Enemy" (I'm totally dating myself here). As such I was up late reading one night, completely creeped out. However, that's the sign of an excellent thriller in my opinion. I raced through the last 2/3 of the book and really wasn't disappointed. There are several more twists, but they actually are pretty believable, not outlandish like in many thrillers. Definitely recommend this one (with the abuse caveat thrown in). A unique psychological thriller that's worth your time, for sure.
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley - thank you! The U.S. edition is available everywhere on 5/3/16. You can find a review of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.