Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
Dana (24 KP) rated This Savage Song (Monsters of Verity, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This is my first book in the 10 Books in 10 Days Challenge presented by Epic Reads.
This book has such an interesting concept in the way it takes the standard Good vs Evil and blurs the lines completely. There are the standard "monsters" and "humans" but it gets hard to tell who is actually at fault in the war that is brewing in the book.
I loved the characters in this book. If I were to rate the book on characters alone, I would have given it a five star review, but alas, I did not. I really enjoyed how August and Kate were both trying to be something they weren't in order to impress their families, but then when they met each other, they weren't as pressured to do that. They rescued each other from their own self destruction.
There were a few really subtle moments of romance, but it wasn't the main focus of the novel, which is something I appreciated a lot. Too often in these dystopian fantasy novels, the girl needs a male romantic lead to make her feel whole and give her some amount of power. Not here!! Kate is already strong as hell!
It was cool to see them anchoring each other through talking. When either one of them was going to break, they told each other to tell them something, anything, and that was just one of those moments that were so emotional. They start repeating each other and caring for one another, something that I don't think either of them had really had before.
I loved all of August's quotes about humanity and what makes a person human. They were very well written!!
I can honestly keep going on the characters and do a character study on these two, but I am not going to do that. (At least not right now.)
I want Ilsa to be my best friend (even though she's kinda creepy at times) and Allegro to cuddle with. It was so freaking cute how the cat was brought in to further humanize August and Ilsa. It reminded me of my cat too.
The monsters were creepy as hell. It actually made me a little nervous in the dark for a bit while I was reading it. (To be honest, I don't get scared of the dark, so that just amps the creepy factor of this book.)
I loved all of the descriptions of sound, music and silence. Because they are all so important and ingrained into the story itself, it was cool whenever Victoria Schwab would bring attention to them in more artistic and melodic ways was just beautiful. I also loved all of the star imagery (but that's just because I am obsessed with the stars.)
I really want to explore the rest of the world and see what else is in store for these characters.
Overall, very well written novel. There were a few moments where it felt a little slow to me, but those were pretty few and far between.
Plot/joke spoilers in the rest of the review.
WTF happened in the freaking Elegy? Did a new Sunai/Malaki just emerge looking like Kate's mom?!?!?!? That is just bananas!!
Also, Leo, wtf dude? You're such a prick. Why would you do that?
Sunai's favorite food = SOUL FOOD (This line was freaking brilliant.)
This book has such an interesting concept in the way it takes the standard Good vs Evil and blurs the lines completely. There are the standard "monsters" and "humans" but it gets hard to tell who is actually at fault in the war that is brewing in the book.
I loved the characters in this book. If I were to rate the book on characters alone, I would have given it a five star review, but alas, I did not. I really enjoyed how August and Kate were both trying to be something they weren't in order to impress their families, but then when they met each other, they weren't as pressured to do that. They rescued each other from their own self destruction.
There were a few really subtle moments of romance, but it wasn't the main focus of the novel, which is something I appreciated a lot. Too often in these dystopian fantasy novels, the girl needs a male romantic lead to make her feel whole and give her some amount of power. Not here!! Kate is already strong as hell!
It was cool to see them anchoring each other through talking. When either one of them was going to break, they told each other to tell them something, anything, and that was just one of those moments that were so emotional. They start repeating each other and caring for one another, something that I don't think either of them had really had before.
I loved all of August's quotes about humanity and what makes a person human. They were very well written!!
I can honestly keep going on the characters and do a character study on these two, but I am not going to do that. (At least not right now.)
I want Ilsa to be my best friend (even though she's kinda creepy at times) and Allegro to cuddle with. It was so freaking cute how the cat was brought in to further humanize August and Ilsa. It reminded me of my cat too.
The monsters were creepy as hell. It actually made me a little nervous in the dark for a bit while I was reading it. (To be honest, I don't get scared of the dark, so that just amps the creepy factor of this book.)
I loved all of the descriptions of sound, music and silence. Because they are all so important and ingrained into the story itself, it was cool whenever Victoria Schwab would bring attention to them in more artistic and melodic ways was just beautiful. I also loved all of the star imagery (but that's just because I am obsessed with the stars.)
I really want to explore the rest of the world and see what else is in store for these characters.
Overall, very well written novel. There were a few moments where it felt a little slow to me, but those were pretty few and far between.
Plot/joke spoilers in the rest of the review.
WTF happened in the freaking Elegy? Did a new Sunai/Malaki just emerge looking like Kate's mom?!?!?!? That is just bananas!!
Also, Leo, wtf dude? You're such a prick. Why would you do that?
Sunai's favorite food = SOUL FOOD (This line was freaking brilliant.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Whiteout (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
For US Marshal Carrie Stetko (Kate Beckinsale), a remote posting in Antarctica was exactly what she needed to regroup after a harrowing assignment took an unexpected and devastating turn.
Unfortunately for Kate, she and the assorted scientists and support personal at the remote research base are about to become pawns in a deadly scenario in the new film “Whiteout”.
In the coldest place on earth, Carrie and many of her fellow expatriates look to evacuate the base for warmer climates before a big winter storm arrives which will signal the start of the severe winter and restrict any travel to and from the base.
Having grown tired of two years of little more than dealing with misdemeanors, Carrie has turned in her resignation and looks forward to what the future holds as does her friend Dr. Fury (Tom Skerritt), who has decided to head back home on the last flight out in 72 hours.
As the camp plans the seasonal evacuation, Carrie is dispatched with Dr. Fury and their pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), to investigate what appears to be a body in the middle of a desolate area. Their fears are soon realized when a badly disfigured body is found which is at first classified as an accident, but to many things about the condition and location of the body do not add up.
Although highly skeptical as there has never been a murder in Antarctica, and knowing the reporting it as such would cancel her trip home so the Feds can do an investigation, Carrie sets out to get to the bottom of the mystery.
As she begins to follow the trail of clues, a mysterious figure kills a suspected witness and makes an attempt on Carrie’s life. The arrival shortly thereafter by an ex military specialist working for the U.N. named Robert Pryce (Gabriel Macht), raises suspicions as he was dispatched very quickly to the locale after the murder was reported and with a severe storm hours away, the arrival of Price is seem as a bad omen.
As the film goes on, Carrie realizes that she has become involved in an old mystery where people are only too willing to commit murder to posses the secrets and that there severe weather coming in is the least dangerous thing in her life.
Not knowing where to turn and who she can trust, Carrie must overcome all manner of challenges to solve the mystery and bring those responsible to justice.
At first the film is rife with potential as the great setting and premise for the film is very interesting. My mind wandered to John Carpenter’s classic version of “The Thing”, which also used the remote locale of Antarctica to set its tale. The unique and deadly beauty of the place undermines the isolation of the characters as they are truly alone with danger amongst them.
Sadly the film has several plot holes and surprisingly lacks any real or sustained tension. There were key sequences in the film which were life and death struggles amongst a ranging storm, yet unfolded in a very ho hum manner.
I learned that the film sat for nearly two years waiting to be released which is never a good sign. That being said, despite the issues, “Whiteout” does have some entertainment value which is in large part thanks to the cast who make the best they can with the material and make the film a watchable if flawed effort.
Unfortunately for Kate, she and the assorted scientists and support personal at the remote research base are about to become pawns in a deadly scenario in the new film “Whiteout”.
In the coldest place on earth, Carrie and many of her fellow expatriates look to evacuate the base for warmer climates before a big winter storm arrives which will signal the start of the severe winter and restrict any travel to and from the base.
Having grown tired of two years of little more than dealing with misdemeanors, Carrie has turned in her resignation and looks forward to what the future holds as does her friend Dr. Fury (Tom Skerritt), who has decided to head back home on the last flight out in 72 hours.
As the camp plans the seasonal evacuation, Carrie is dispatched with Dr. Fury and their pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), to investigate what appears to be a body in the middle of a desolate area. Their fears are soon realized when a badly disfigured body is found which is at first classified as an accident, but to many things about the condition and location of the body do not add up.
Although highly skeptical as there has never been a murder in Antarctica, and knowing the reporting it as such would cancel her trip home so the Feds can do an investigation, Carrie sets out to get to the bottom of the mystery.
As she begins to follow the trail of clues, a mysterious figure kills a suspected witness and makes an attempt on Carrie’s life. The arrival shortly thereafter by an ex military specialist working for the U.N. named Robert Pryce (Gabriel Macht), raises suspicions as he was dispatched very quickly to the locale after the murder was reported and with a severe storm hours away, the arrival of Price is seem as a bad omen.
As the film goes on, Carrie realizes that she has become involved in an old mystery where people are only too willing to commit murder to posses the secrets and that there severe weather coming in is the least dangerous thing in her life.
Not knowing where to turn and who she can trust, Carrie must overcome all manner of challenges to solve the mystery and bring those responsible to justice.
At first the film is rife with potential as the great setting and premise for the film is very interesting. My mind wandered to John Carpenter’s classic version of “The Thing”, which also used the remote locale of Antarctica to set its tale. The unique and deadly beauty of the place undermines the isolation of the characters as they are truly alone with danger amongst them.
Sadly the film has several plot holes and surprisingly lacks any real or sustained tension. There were key sequences in the film which were life and death struggles amongst a ranging storm, yet unfolded in a very ho hum manner.
I learned that the film sat for nearly two years waiting to be released which is never a good sign. That being said, despite the issues, “Whiteout” does have some entertainment value which is in large part thanks to the cast who make the best they can with the material and make the film a watchable if flawed effort.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Molly J (Cover To Cover Cafe) (106 KP) rated Deadly Proof (Atlanta Justice #1) in Books
Feb 27, 2019
Holy smokes! Ms. Dylan is AH-mazing!!! I was so excited to get this book and review it. I sat down the minute I got it and DEVOURED it! I was done almost as quickly as I began it. Her writing style is just THAT good. The intensity that she creates the story with, I felt every bit of it. It was a wonderful time, reading this story!
I have always had a fascination with crime dramas and the legalities of it all, so when I had the chance to review this for the author, I jumped on it. The plot line was intruiging and the characters sounded absolutely fantastic. I was right. Kate and Landon's characters were both beautifully chiseled for their roles and instantly stole my heart. The sparks that pass between them are awesome and the suspenseful twists to the story really bring out the intensity of both of these characters as the heart pounding, page turning scenes come to life.
This book is in my top 10 favorite reads of 2017. It is a wonderful story, filled with edge of your seat, fast paced circumstances. Learning to lean on God in times of crisis, and focusing on the future and not the past really make this book beyond 5 star worthy. I can't wait to see what book 2 in this incredible new series has in store for us. Hats off and gavels down to the awesometastic author, Rachel Dylan!
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Bethany House Publishers/author and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
I have always had a fascination with crime dramas and the legalities of it all, so when I had the chance to review this for the author, I jumped on it. The plot line was intruiging and the characters sounded absolutely fantastic. I was right. Kate and Landon's characters were both beautifully chiseled for their roles and instantly stole my heart. The sparks that pass between them are awesome and the suspenseful twists to the story really bring out the intensity of both of these characters as the heart pounding, page turning scenes come to life.
This book is in my top 10 favorite reads of 2017. It is a wonderful story, filled with edge of your seat, fast paced circumstances. Learning to lean on God in times of crisis, and focusing on the future and not the past really make this book beyond 5 star worthy. I can't wait to see what book 2 in this incredible new series has in store for us. Hats off and gavels down to the awesometastic author, Rachel Dylan!
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Bethany House Publishers/author and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated Where We Belong in Books
Mar 5, 2019
In the year 1892, the principles; that is the manners and customs for Victorian women were strict and their roles were limited. It was frowned upon for ladies to further their education but for the Hawes sisters, things were different. Their love for adventure and their search for God's purpose in their lives leads them on an adventure of a lifetime to the Sinai Desert.
On a quest to find an important biblical manuscript, joined by their butler and ladies maid Kate, the four find themselves on a journey that is dangerous and uncertain; the four travelers find themselves looking back at their past and the events that help shape them into who they are and what brought them to this point in their lives.
Author Lynn Austin has done a wonderful job of research. She has written this novel from the inspiration taken from the true story of twin sisters Agnes and Margret Smith; who were born in Scotland in 1843.
This novel was a joy to read and hard to put down. The characters were very easy to relate to and the storyline was fascinating.
I truly enjoyed every aspect of this story, the determination of the ladies, to the principles they stood up for and their love for God.
This is an exceptional read and anyone who loves historical fiction will truly enjoy this.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
On a quest to find an important biblical manuscript, joined by their butler and ladies maid Kate, the four find themselves on a journey that is dangerous and uncertain; the four travelers find themselves looking back at their past and the events that help shape them into who they are and what brought them to this point in their lives.
Author Lynn Austin has done a wonderful job of research. She has written this novel from the inspiration taken from the true story of twin sisters Agnes and Margret Smith; who were born in Scotland in 1843.
This novel was a joy to read and hard to put down. The characters were very easy to relate to and the storyline was fascinating.
I truly enjoyed every aspect of this story, the determination of the ladies, to the principles they stood up for and their love for God.
This is an exceptional read and anyone who loves historical fiction will truly enjoy this.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Radium Girls: The Dark Story of America's Shining Women in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Kate Moore writes a compelling and heart wrenching story about a group of women from New Jersey and Illinois whose job it was to use radium paint to paint watch dials so they would illuminate at night. Little did they know, that every time they would put their brush in their mouth to get the point just right to paint the dial precisely, they were killing themselves. They were told that the paint was perfectly safe and there was no way that the paint could be causing all of their medical problems. But the companies knew that the radium was dangerous. Scientists and others in the radium plant used gloves and had lead aprons on, but the dial painters were not given that luxury.
Slowly the effects of the paint began to show on their bodies. Women who were in the prime of their life were losing their teeth, their jaw bones were falling out, it was difficult for them to walk, and no one could explain it. They went to several doctors and no one could find the reason they were getting sick. The radium companies refused to admit that they were at fault. For years and years, they fought for justice. Justice for women who were dying in their 20s. This book made your heart ache for these women.
While I thoroughly enjoyed this book, it was quite a slow read for me. I wanted to know if justice was going to be served, but it took a while to get to that point. This is quite an interesting story and this was the first that I had ever heard of it.
Slowly the effects of the paint began to show on their bodies. Women who were in the prime of their life were losing their teeth, their jaw bones were falling out, it was difficult for them to walk, and no one could explain it. They went to several doctors and no one could find the reason they were getting sick. The radium companies refused to admit that they were at fault. For years and years, they fought for justice. Justice for women who were dying in their 20s. This book made your heart ache for these women.
While I thoroughly enjoyed this book, it was quite a slow read for me. I wanted to know if justice was going to be served, but it took a while to get to that point. This is quite an interesting story and this was the first that I had ever heard of it.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Anatomy of a Scandal in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Anatomy of a Scandal is based around three central characters. First there’s James, the suave, charismatic family man and politician who is also good friends with the Prime Minister. He’s wealthy and over-privileged. Then we meet Kate, the young, ruthlessly ambitious prosecutor, who’s determined to see James get the guilty verdict he deserves. She’s also good at her job and made her name prosecuting the very worst sexual assault cases. Finally we meet Sophie, James’ wife who has been dating James since college and knows him better than anyone else. All have a vital part to play in this psychological, legal drama, which starts with a shocking scandal being revealed, which is then dissected in court.
James is accused of rape one of his assistants, but did he do it? While his wife Sophie is seemingly supportive on the outside, on the inside her mind is going crazy thinking about his alleged crimes and what he could in fact be capable of. Just how long can she remain loyal as the story unfolds?
We travel from the court case, back in time to Oxford in the 90s and into the current murky goings on within the privileged political world, where money, corruption and power rule the day.
This is an extremely well written and cleverly plotted, insightful story, which I can easily see adapted into a BBC drama, very much like Louise Doughty’s Apple Tree Yard.
Sarah Vaughan has mastered a treat for us with Anatomy of a Scandal, a sharp, engrossing and poignant political drama, which highlights some shocking hard-hitting facts with sensitivity and realism. Terrific!
James is accused of rape one of his assistants, but did he do it? While his wife Sophie is seemingly supportive on the outside, on the inside her mind is going crazy thinking about his alleged crimes and what he could in fact be capable of. Just how long can she remain loyal as the story unfolds?
We travel from the court case, back in time to Oxford in the 90s and into the current murky goings on within the privileged political world, where money, corruption and power rule the day.
This is an extremely well written and cleverly plotted, insightful story, which I can easily see adapted into a BBC drama, very much like Louise Doughty’s Apple Tree Yard.
Sarah Vaughan has mastered a treat for us with Anatomy of a Scandal, a sharp, engrossing and poignant political drama, which highlights some shocking hard-hitting facts with sensitivity and realism. Terrific!