Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Fly (1986) in Movies
Mar 13, 2021 (Updated Mar 15, 2021)
Come Fly With Me...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Fly, Directed by David Cronenberg, 1986
To the victor go the spoils. To the reader, go the spoilers.
We watched The Fly the other night. I observed, with fond amusement, that the energetic and quirky Jeff Goldblum always seems to star as himself. In this film, he plays a scientist named Seth Brundle. His offbeat handsomeness pairs well with the pale beauty of Geena Davis, who stars alongside him as journalist Veronica Quaife. As the two characters hit it off, I tried to ignore the fact that Goldblum’s character came off as somewhat creepy.
Then we were introduced to Veronica’s ex-boyfriend, who is also her boss. Stathis, played by John Getz, is unhinged. His performance was exaggerated, almost a caricature. He presents himself as the pinnacle alpha-male. Talk about a stalker. His attempts to control Veronica, and his jealousy, were epic. I commented that the scariest thing about this movie was Veronica’s ex. Little did I know what the rest of the film had in store.
Seth, an undiscovered genius, has invented a transporter. Seth shows Veronica how his invention works by transporting her stocking from one pod to another. Veronica wants to publish a story about it, but Seth insists that his technology is not ready. Seth and Veronica become involved, and she helps document his experiments.
Later, things get hairy. Naturally, they want to see if the pods are capable of transporting living beings. Instead of experimenting on a bug, or a mouse, or a smaller creature, they attempt to transport a full-sized monkey.
Suffice to say, things do not go well. Kudos to the special effects team for creating that pile of retch.
More modifications are made, and another monkey survives the transportation trip.
The romance grows between Seth and Veronica. I had a hard time buying into the chemistry between Goldblum and Davis. They both seemed a little distant. Regardless, the love story pushes forward. There is even talk of the pair going away together “like an old married couple.” Then Veronica’s boss throws a wrench in the mix. Veronica is forced to deal with his antics. Seth, who is also a bit of a jealous type, gets drunk and sends himself through the transporter, since the monkey seemed fine.
Then there comes the stuff of nightmares. Seth isn’t himself. He is immediately charged with manic energy. He performs quite an impressive gymnastics routine (thank you, stunt Goldblum).Veronica is clearly distraught that her boyfriend is losing it.
The physical metamorphosis begins. Seth develops weird, wiry hairs protruding from a cut on his back. His sex drive goes wonky, and when he alienates Veronica, he finds a random lady from a bar to sleep with. His complexion worsens dramatically. He discovers that his machine has melded his genetic information with the DNA of a fly that was in the pod of the transporter with him. THE DNA FUSED AT A MOLECULAR LEVEL. This, my dear viewers, is not good. Not the sort of thing you can get addressed at your nearest urgent care clinic.
Things get worse, and incredibly gross, from there. Fingernails fall off and bug juice oozes. The makeup and special effects departments did an extremely convincing job. I felt incredibly bad for this seemingly highly intelligent man. My boyfriend kept calling for a flame thrower.
Veronica tries to help, and is empathetic. But watching your newfound love deteriorate so rapidly, and being powerless to help, is extremely traumatic. Davis brought her A-game to this portion of the performance. And, true to the sci-fi soap opera plot, she discovers that she is pregnant with Seth’s baby.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you. But do you imagine this story ends well? I had hope. But it was squashed like a bug. If you have the stomach for good, old-fashioned movie gore, and you like Weird Science with a touch of Bad Romance, this film is for you.
To the victor go the spoils. To the reader, go the spoilers.
We watched The Fly the other night. I observed, with fond amusement, that the energetic and quirky Jeff Goldblum always seems to star as himself. In this film, he plays a scientist named Seth Brundle. His offbeat handsomeness pairs well with the pale beauty of Geena Davis, who stars alongside him as journalist Veronica Quaife. As the two characters hit it off, I tried to ignore the fact that Goldblum’s character came off as somewhat creepy.
Then we were introduced to Veronica’s ex-boyfriend, who is also her boss. Stathis, played by John Getz, is unhinged. His performance was exaggerated, almost a caricature. He presents himself as the pinnacle alpha-male. Talk about a stalker. His attempts to control Veronica, and his jealousy, were epic. I commented that the scariest thing about this movie was Veronica’s ex. Little did I know what the rest of the film had in store.
Seth, an undiscovered genius, has invented a transporter. Seth shows Veronica how his invention works by transporting her stocking from one pod to another. Veronica wants to publish a story about it, but Seth insists that his technology is not ready. Seth and Veronica become involved, and she helps document his experiments.
Later, things get hairy. Naturally, they want to see if the pods are capable of transporting living beings. Instead of experimenting on a bug, or a mouse, or a smaller creature, they attempt to transport a full-sized monkey.
Suffice to say, things do not go well. Kudos to the special effects team for creating that pile of retch.
More modifications are made, and another monkey survives the transportation trip.
The romance grows between Seth and Veronica. I had a hard time buying into the chemistry between Goldblum and Davis. They both seemed a little distant. Regardless, the love story pushes forward. There is even talk of the pair going away together “like an old married couple.” Then Veronica’s boss throws a wrench in the mix. Veronica is forced to deal with his antics. Seth, who is also a bit of a jealous type, gets drunk and sends himself through the transporter, since the monkey seemed fine.
Then there comes the stuff of nightmares. Seth isn’t himself. He is immediately charged with manic energy. He performs quite an impressive gymnastics routine (thank you, stunt Goldblum).Veronica is clearly distraught that her boyfriend is losing it.
The physical metamorphosis begins. Seth develops weird, wiry hairs protruding from a cut on his back. His sex drive goes wonky, and when he alienates Veronica, he finds a random lady from a bar to sleep with. His complexion worsens dramatically. He discovers that his machine has melded his genetic information with the DNA of a fly that was in the pod of the transporter with him. THE DNA FUSED AT A MOLECULAR LEVEL. This, my dear viewers, is not good. Not the sort of thing you can get addressed at your nearest urgent care clinic.
Things get worse, and incredibly gross, from there. Fingernails fall off and bug juice oozes. The makeup and special effects departments did an extremely convincing job. I felt incredibly bad for this seemingly highly intelligent man. My boyfriend kept calling for a flame thrower.
Veronica tries to help, and is empathetic. But watching your newfound love deteriorate so rapidly, and being powerless to help, is extremely traumatic. Davis brought her A-game to this portion of the performance. And, true to the sci-fi soap opera plot, she discovers that she is pregnant with Seth’s baby.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you. But do you imagine this story ends well? I had hope. But it was squashed like a bug. If you have the stomach for good, old-fashioned movie gore, and you like Weird Science with a touch of Bad Romance, this film is for you.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 20, 2021
Writing and directing is pitch perfect (1 more)
Carey Mulligan - awesome acting
Emerald Fennell delivers a real ‘page turner’ of a movie
"Promising Young Woman" sees Cassie (Carrie Mulligan) out to wage war on predatory men sexually asserting themselves on vulnerable woman in bars. But with the chance mention of a name, her mission takes on a whole new level and becomes very personal. How far will Carrie go to right a wrong?
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Great writing (2 more)
Never slows down
Great characters
Of the few children's horror books out there, Neil Gaiman's 2002 short novel Coraline, is one of the must-read for that age group. When a young girl named Coraline, and her family move into a new house (one which shares its basement and attic with other tenets), she finds a locked door that leads to nowhere, but soon after the door opens to a house that mirrors her own, yet the people there are a little bit "different. "
The people here look like the people from the world on the other side of the door, but these people have big buttons for eyes, and some are younger than their counterparts, but the most odd are her "other" parents, who, in her world, don't spend very much time with Coraline, and these two buttoned-eyed parents pay so much attention to her that they want her to stay with them forever just so they can make her happy. Coraline even meets a talking black cat, but the cat tells her it was smart to bring protection to this world (a stone with a hole in it that was given to her in the other world by two older lady tenets); this makes Coraline wonder why she would need protection in such a great place like this.
But for Coraline to stay in this world, her other mother and father tell her there is only one little thing she has to do to make that happen: " 'If you want to stay,' said her other father, 'there's only one little thing we'll have to do, so you can stay here for ever and always. '
They went to into the kitchen. On a china plate on the kitchen table was a spool of black cotton, and a long silver needle, and, beside them, two large black buttons. "
Coraline must allow her other parents to sew buttons over her eyes, but she adamantly refuses to allow them; her other parents don't argue with her, but rather bid her farewell, stating they'll see her again soon.
When Coraline returns to her normal world, she comes to realize that her parents are missing. Coraline now knows that the other parents will stop at nothing, including kidnapping her real parents, to get her to join them. Coraline goes back to the other world, demanding that the other parents give her real ones back. It's always that easy, right?
Wrong. Since the other parents are not willing to let Coraline go so easily, the other mother decides to play a game with Coraline, which is if she can find the souls of the other children this other mother has taken, she'll not only get to go home, but also get to take her real parents with her.
Fortunately, Coraline wasn't working alone in this game - - - remember the black cat? - - - she even has to face the 'other' counterparts of the tenets that live in the building. Since the movie of Coraline is still popular, most readers can guess what happens, but maybe not exactly how it happens.
Some readers may realize that the movie is quite different from the book. Most books are different from their film counterparts, but then you have books such as Stephen King's 'The Shining,' which are practically complete opposites of the movie. I don't believe that those, like myself, who watched the movie 'Coraline,' before reading the book will be disappointed by it, although there are quite a few differences throughout.
I have to end my review here because to tell you any more of the story would give away some of what makes Coraline such a great book. Which is not surprising coming from Neil Gaiman whose writing is always clear and concise, never slowing scenes down. Gaiman's children-age books are always flawless in both idea and writing.
Although this story is for ages 8 - 12, as an adult, I thoroughly enjoyed it! I highly recommend this book as a great way to introduce children to the horror genre, and to older people that like a good creepy story to read.
The people here look like the people from the world on the other side of the door, but these people have big buttons for eyes, and some are younger than their counterparts, but the most odd are her "other" parents, who, in her world, don't spend very much time with Coraline, and these two buttoned-eyed parents pay so much attention to her that they want her to stay with them forever just so they can make her happy. Coraline even meets a talking black cat, but the cat tells her it was smart to bring protection to this world (a stone with a hole in it that was given to her in the other world by two older lady tenets); this makes Coraline wonder why she would need protection in such a great place like this.
But for Coraline to stay in this world, her other mother and father tell her there is only one little thing she has to do to make that happen: " 'If you want to stay,' said her other father, 'there's only one little thing we'll have to do, so you can stay here for ever and always. '
They went to into the kitchen. On a china plate on the kitchen table was a spool of black cotton, and a long silver needle, and, beside them, two large black buttons. "
Coraline must allow her other parents to sew buttons over her eyes, but she adamantly refuses to allow them; her other parents don't argue with her, but rather bid her farewell, stating they'll see her again soon.
When Coraline returns to her normal world, she comes to realize that her parents are missing. Coraline now knows that the other parents will stop at nothing, including kidnapping her real parents, to get her to join them. Coraline goes back to the other world, demanding that the other parents give her real ones back. It's always that easy, right?
Wrong. Since the other parents are not willing to let Coraline go so easily, the other mother decides to play a game with Coraline, which is if she can find the souls of the other children this other mother has taken, she'll not only get to go home, but also get to take her real parents with her.
Fortunately, Coraline wasn't working alone in this game - - - remember the black cat? - - - she even has to face the 'other' counterparts of the tenets that live in the building. Since the movie of Coraline is still popular, most readers can guess what happens, but maybe not exactly how it happens.
Some readers may realize that the movie is quite different from the book. Most books are different from their film counterparts, but then you have books such as Stephen King's 'The Shining,' which are practically complete opposites of the movie. I don't believe that those, like myself, who watched the movie 'Coraline,' before reading the book will be disappointed by it, although there are quite a few differences throughout.
I have to end my review here because to tell you any more of the story would give away some of what makes Coraline such a great book. Which is not surprising coming from Neil Gaiman whose writing is always clear and concise, never slowing scenes down. Gaiman's children-age books are always flawless in both idea and writing.
Although this story is for ages 8 - 12, as an adult, I thoroughly enjoyed it! I highly recommend this book as a great way to introduce children to the horror genre, and to older people that like a good creepy story to read.
UK Social - British Dating App. Chat & Meet Single
Lifestyle and Social Networking
App
Millions of straight, gay and lesbian singles count on us to find the man or woman they want to...
Piano with Songs
Music and Games
5.0
Rate It
App
Piano Free has the largest song catalog of any piano on the app store. With over 1,500 songs to...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Chat Love in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I wanted to read this book immediately after reading the synopsis, and I was honoured when the author, Justine Faeth, approached me and sent me an ebook copy in exchange for an honest review.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).