Search
Search results
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated I Don't Know How She Does It: The Life of Kate Reddy, Working Mother in Books
May 29, 2018
So. Much. Anxiety. If I had kids, I would totally be Kate. Lost in between two worlds and failing miserable at balancing them both. I just cannot seem to grasp the high demand job + motherhood balance, and it gives me heart palpitations just thinking about it. EVERYTHING in this book just confirmed that motherhood is not for me! Don't get me wrong - I admire the people who can do it! I just have ZERO faith in myself that I'd ever be able to balance the two without buckets of Xanax and a therapist on speed dial.
Kate Reddy is having a hard time. She's got a high power job and some littles at home and she is struggling making it all work. She refuses to become a Pinterest mom, and doesn't really have the time anyway, plus, her job doesn't take her as serious as they should - because she's a ROCKSTAR, but she's a women, so... well, 'nuff said. Trying to find the time to be a good mom to her kids, wife to Richard, and give her job the attention it deserves - is not working out, and Kate needs to figure out her priorities - and fast!
I love Allison Pearson's writing - its quick, descriptive, and so witty. I get a bit lost in some of the British slang, but it's still fun pretending I understand it. Kate trying to figure out how to be a mother in a man's world, is equally sad and hilarious and I had fun reading this. Next up is How Hard Can it Be! I'm excited to read the follow up to this book and see where Kate has landed at 50!
Kate Reddy is having a hard time. She's got a high power job and some littles at home and she is struggling making it all work. She refuses to become a Pinterest mom, and doesn't really have the time anyway, plus, her job doesn't take her as serious as they should - because she's a ROCKSTAR, but she's a women, so... well, 'nuff said. Trying to find the time to be a good mom to her kids, wife to Richard, and give her job the attention it deserves - is not working out, and Kate needs to figure out her priorities - and fast!
I love Allison Pearson's writing - its quick, descriptive, and so witty. I get a bit lost in some of the British slang, but it's still fun pretending I understand it. Kate trying to figure out how to be a mother in a man's world, is equally sad and hilarious and I had fun reading this. Next up is How Hard Can it Be! I'm excited to read the follow up to this book and see where Kate has landed at 50!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated How Hard Can It Be? in Books
Mar 10, 2019 (Updated Mar 10, 2019)
Things have taken a bit of a turn for Kate Reddy--she's nearing 50, her husband has lost his job and spends most of his time cycling, and her kids are busy teenagers. With Richard out of work, Kate has to return to work. However, she finds that the financial community isn't welcoming to a woman on the cusp of fifty. When Kate decides to pretend she's seven years younger to enter the working world, she winds up working at the hedge fund she originally started. Once back at work, though, she finds herself overwhelmed dealing with everything: the unhelpful husband, the ungrateful kids, the demanding colleagues, and an unexpected appearance from an old flame.
This was a tough one for me. It was a slow read, although in its defense, I read it during a very busy time at work. I empathized with Kate's return to working motherhood--especially juggling kids and work and dealing with a male-driven workplace. I didn't enjoy the intense focus on how old Kate was, making her seem nearly decrepit at fifty. It's one thing to deal with turning the big 5-0 and its ramifications, but its another to make it seem like it's the end of the world. Even worse, while Kate could seem so strong in the workplace, she was such a pushover with her children. She was supposedly clueless with technology, unable to keep up with their exploits, and a complete doormat. (I also couldn't handle the endless endearments she used with her kids--there's only so many "sweeties" and "darlings" I can take.)
There are certainly humorous moments in the novel. This is a sequel to Pearson's first novel featuring Reddy and the parts I enjoyed here were the parts I liked about the first one: Kate's wit, her ability to take on the "big boys" at her fund, and the snippets of emails between her and her friend, Candy. There were definitely pieces of the novel that I found myself nodding along with--her moments of anxiety; her rants about how working moms are treated; some insights into kids and the social media era, etc. And Kate certainly doesn't have an easy go of it, with her clueless husband, helpless kids, crumbling house, aging parents, and stressful job.
That being said, I could see most of the plot twists coming a mile away, and you couldn't help but get frustrated that Kate couldn't see them too. Overall, while I found parts of this novel funny, refreshing, and quite apropos, I couldn't really get over Kate's obsession with her looks or her one-sided relationship with her children. In the end my rating is probably bumped up a bit for a little Kate Reddy nostalgia.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was a tough one for me. It was a slow read, although in its defense, I read it during a very busy time at work. I empathized with Kate's return to working motherhood--especially juggling kids and work and dealing with a male-driven workplace. I didn't enjoy the intense focus on how old Kate was, making her seem nearly decrepit at fifty. It's one thing to deal with turning the big 5-0 and its ramifications, but its another to make it seem like it's the end of the world. Even worse, while Kate could seem so strong in the workplace, she was such a pushover with her children. She was supposedly clueless with technology, unable to keep up with their exploits, and a complete doormat. (I also couldn't handle the endless endearments she used with her kids--there's only so many "sweeties" and "darlings" I can take.)
There are certainly humorous moments in the novel. This is a sequel to Pearson's first novel featuring Reddy and the parts I enjoyed here were the parts I liked about the first one: Kate's wit, her ability to take on the "big boys" at her fund, and the snippets of emails between her and her friend, Candy. There were definitely pieces of the novel that I found myself nodding along with--her moments of anxiety; her rants about how working moms are treated; some insights into kids and the social media era, etc. And Kate certainly doesn't have an easy go of it, with her clueless husband, helpless kids, crumbling house, aging parents, and stressful job.
That being said, I could see most of the plot twists coming a mile away, and you couldn't help but get frustrated that Kate couldn't see them too. Overall, while I found parts of this novel funny, refreshing, and quite apropos, I couldn't really get over Kate's obsession with her looks or her one-sided relationship with her children. In the end my rating is probably bumped up a bit for a little Kate Reddy nostalgia.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
David McK (3185 KP) rated Van Helsing (2004) in Movies
Aug 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 7, 2019)
Early 2000s (2004?) movie, that re-imagines the role of van Helsing (from the Dracula novel) as a Monster hunter, rather than the elderly scientist he is usually portrayed as, and with Hugh Jackman stepping into the central role as just that character.
Also starring Kate Beckinsale as Anna Valerious (and, yes, again wearing tight fitting trousers a la Underworld) and with Richard Roxburgh doing all but chewing the scenery as Count Dracula, this see's Van Helsing travel to Transylvania in an effort to uncover the mystery of his past and aid Anna in stopping her family's curse in a film that also sees many of Universals 'classic' monsters (Wolfman, Dracula's brides, Frankenstein's Monster, Jekyll and Hyde) involved.
Also starring Kate Beckinsale as Anna Valerious (and, yes, again wearing tight fitting trousers a la Underworld) and with Richard Roxburgh doing all but chewing the scenery as Count Dracula, this see's Van Helsing travel to Transylvania in an effort to uncover the mystery of his past and aid Anna in stopping her family's curse in a film that also sees many of Universals 'classic' monsters (Wolfman, Dracula's brides, Frankenstein's Monster, Jekyll and Hyde) involved.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Van Helsing (2004) in Movies
May 14, 2021
Adventure Lives Forever
Van Helsing- tired to atempt starting a universe that didnt happen. Tired to start a franchise/spin-offs that didnt happen. But other than that its good. Hugh Jackman is good as Van Helsing.
The plot: Famed monster slayer Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is dispatched to Transylvania to assist the last of the Valerious bloodline in defeating Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh). Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) reveals that Dracula has formed an unholy alliance with Dr. Frankenstein's monster (Shuler Hensley) and is hell-bent on exacting a centuries-old curse on her family. Together Anna and Van Helsing set out to destroy their common enemy, but uncover some unsettling secrets along the way.
Its a good film.
The plot: Famed monster slayer Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is dispatched to Transylvania to assist the last of the Valerious bloodline in defeating Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh). Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) reveals that Dracula has formed an unholy alliance with Dr. Frankenstein's monster (Shuler Hensley) and is hell-bent on exacting a centuries-old curse on her family. Together Anna and Van Helsing set out to destroy their common enemy, but uncover some unsettling secrets along the way.
Its a good film.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Van Helsing (2004) in Movies
Aug 19, 2019
The original beginning of the Dark Universe
In the early 2000s we saw a drop in great movies, even good ones and was left with the occasional sleeper hit and the obvious box office hits.
In 2004 universal released 'Van Helsing', with pretty decent promoting, and some neat casting with rising stars Hugh Jackman & Kate Beckinsale at the helm - with Richard Roxburgh as Dracula (also Robbie Coltrane as Mr Hyde)
The Story:
Van Helsing is on a mission from God, to rid evil from the world. After a 'paris job' goes wrong, Helsing returns to the Vatican to be briefed on this next assignment which sees helsing and his ally and friar named carl heading to Transylvania, to hunt down and kill count Dracula.
Joining forces with a Gypsy Princess named Anna who also seeks to kill Dracula in order to break her family's curse before her bloodline ends allowing her family to enter the kindom of heaven.
In 2004 universal released 'Van Helsing', with pretty decent promoting, and some neat casting with rising stars Hugh Jackman & Kate Beckinsale at the helm - with Richard Roxburgh as Dracula (also Robbie Coltrane as Mr Hyde)
The Story:
Van Helsing is on a mission from God, to rid evil from the world. After a 'paris job' goes wrong, Helsing returns to the Vatican to be briefed on this next assignment which sees helsing and his ally and friar named carl heading to Transylvania, to hunt down and kill count Dracula.
Joining forces with a Gypsy Princess named Anna who also seeks to kill Dracula in order to break her family's curse before her bloodline ends allowing her family to enter the kindom of heaven.
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated How Hard Can It Be? in Books
May 29, 2018
It's all fun and games until someone posts a belfie.
Kate Reddy is back. And her daughters backSIDE is causing some trouble. We jump right into our favorite bad-a$$, anxiety-ridden, take-charge heroine Kate's life as she is approaching 50 and it seems the hilarity and struggles of parenting, working, wife-ing, friendship and everything else in Kate's life is just as amusing as ever.
Kate's daughter Emily has taken a pic of her butt and the crazy life of Kate's we all know and love, just cannot seem to get any more complicated - until it does. She's been out of the workforce, and looking to get back in, She's not having much of any sort of pleasant relations with husband Richard (yes, surprisingly, still married). She's having a mini mid-life crisis trying to accept she's almost 50, her parents are aging, and her kids are now teenagers and the struggles to communicate with these digital-age micro-adults is almost as difficult as communicating with Russian Investors.
As Kate tries to make her way back into the world of investing she once was so good at, she has some pretty cringeworthy experiences, and struggles to find a way in that world as an "aging" woman. We find several comparisons to the past, when just being a mother was the wall between her and success. She finds herself lying to herself and others, trying her best to tiptoe through a marriage in crisis and lack of communication with her children, and praying the looming milestone birthday isn't going to be the demise of any semblance of the woman that she knows she is, and desperately wants to find again. Oh, and did I mention Jack is BACK?!
The book is classic Allison Pearson: witty, entertaining and full of laughs. I didn't realize how much I missed Kate (I totally still picture SJP in every situation...) and I settled into a familiar routine of rooting for her to find her stride and finally be happy with who she is, who she's becoming, and where she might be headed next.
The story is nostalgic of I Don't Know How She Does It, but reads well as a standalone with snippets of backstory that are well-placed and don't interfere. Avoiding any spoilers, I'll just say that I'm pretty sure readers and fans of Kate Reddy will be pleased at how it all turns out. How Hard Can It Be? was refreshing but familiar and it felt like an old friend was back in my life.
Thanks to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the Advanced Copy and opportunity to review this book.
Kate Reddy is back. And her daughters backSIDE is causing some trouble. We jump right into our favorite bad-a$$, anxiety-ridden, take-charge heroine Kate's life as she is approaching 50 and it seems the hilarity and struggles of parenting, working, wife-ing, friendship and everything else in Kate's life is just as amusing as ever.
Kate's daughter Emily has taken a pic of her butt and the crazy life of Kate's we all know and love, just cannot seem to get any more complicated - until it does. She's been out of the workforce, and looking to get back in, She's not having much of any sort of pleasant relations with husband Richard (yes, surprisingly, still married). She's having a mini mid-life crisis trying to accept she's almost 50, her parents are aging, and her kids are now teenagers and the struggles to communicate with these digital-age micro-adults is almost as difficult as communicating with Russian Investors.
As Kate tries to make her way back into the world of investing she once was so good at, she has some pretty cringeworthy experiences, and struggles to find a way in that world as an "aging" woman. We find several comparisons to the past, when just being a mother was the wall between her and success. She finds herself lying to herself and others, trying her best to tiptoe through a marriage in crisis and lack of communication with her children, and praying the looming milestone birthday isn't going to be the demise of any semblance of the woman that she knows she is, and desperately wants to find again. Oh, and did I mention Jack is BACK?!
The book is classic Allison Pearson: witty, entertaining and full of laughs. I didn't realize how much I missed Kate (I totally still picture SJP in every situation...) and I settled into a familiar routine of rooting for her to find her stride and finally be happy with who she is, who she's becoming, and where she might be headed next.
The story is nostalgic of I Don't Know How She Does It, but reads well as a standalone with snippets of backstory that are well-placed and don't interfere. Avoiding any spoilers, I'll just say that I'm pretty sure readers and fans of Kate Reddy will be pleased at how it all turns out. How Hard Can It Be? was refreshing but familiar and it felt like an old friend was back in my life.
Thanks to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the Advanced Copy and opportunity to review this book.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Rocketman recently did a great job of reminding us just how good Elton John songs are, making us want to dust off our vinyl/plastic/streaming service collection and reacquaint ourselves with his back catalogue all over again. Last year the Bohemian Rhapsody movie did a similar thing for the music of Queen and now it's the turn of The Beatles, with Yesterday. Written by Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle, Yesterday doesn't go down the musical/biopic route, instead taking classic Beatles songs and weaving them into a high concept romantic comedy.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.