Search
Search results
Millionaire Singles Match, Elite Online Dating App
Social Networking and Lifestyle
App
MDate is the leading millionaire match online dating app which caters to the league, successful rich...
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
The Rose and the Ring
Book
The plot opens on the royal family of Paflagonia eating breakfast together: King Valoroso, his wife,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ticket to paradise (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2022
Charismatic Leads Saves This Underwritten Film
Have you watched one of the two ABBA Musical MAMA MIA films (MAMA MIA or MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN) and thought to yourself, “I want more of this, but with no music”.
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Rick and Morty - Season 2 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
Absolute insanity (1 more)
Will leave you in stitches throughout
The Universe Is A Crazy and Chaotic Place…
Rick & Morty was one of those shows that totally flew under the radar for me while it was on the air for months, then all of a sudden almost every podcast and youtuber that I subscribe to were recommending it. Though by the time that I was recommended it, I was aware it was an Adult Swim show, so I assumed each episode would only be around six or seven minutes long and put it on the backburner. Then one day I had run out of things to watch, I was up to date on all of my youtube videos and decided to give it a shot. Whilst I didn’t fall in love with it immediately, it did hook me right away and I was pleased to learn each episode was 20 minutes long and because the episodes are so short, I decided to watch a few episodes in a row and by the time I had finished watching Anatomy Park, the third episode of the first season, I realised how great this show was. The writing is so off the wall and insane yet dry that it works and the characters and the dynamic that they have is honestly hilarious, the comedic timing is also spot on. If you haven’t seen the show, think a blend of Family Guy style animation, with a backdrop of a Back To The Future or Doctor Who kind of universe and sprinkled with Always Sunny In Philadelphia style comedy. There is so much about this show that makes it funny, the sheer insanity and traumatisation that Rick exposes his grandchildren to, only to then brush it off as if it is totally normal as it is them that are overreacting and then there is Gerry and Beth’s broken marriage that only exists because Gerry got Beth pregnant with Summer when they were teenagers. Rick and Gerry are probably my two favourite characters in the show, Rick because you know he has seen so many insane things all over the galaxy over the years that literally nothing bothers him anymore and everything is normal to him, no matter how insane it seems to us and the other characters in the show and Gerry because of his exceptional mediocrity and impressive amount of general naivety. Also it would be criminal not to mention the other vast array of fantastically hilarious characters that we meet throughout the show, from Mr Meeseeks, (look at me!) to Mr Poopybutthole, to Birdperson, the list goes on getting more and more crazy as it does. The show is two seasons in so far, with a total of 21 episodes and I can honestly say that there is not one episode that I don’t like. I do have my favourites however, like M Night Shamaliens, when Rick, Morty and Gerry are stuck in a simulation of the real world and Gerry thinks he is having the greatest day of his life, or Rick Potion No.9, where said potion makes everybody fall in love with Morty, then transform into grotesque monsters, so they simply leave that reality behind and move into a fresh one, or Raising Gazorpazorp, where Morty goes through fatherhood in the space of a day, or Mortynight Run where they leave Gerry in a nursing home full of other Gerrys, I don’t want to spoil too much for those who haven’t seen it, but if you haven’t then stop watching this review right now and go watch Rick & Morty. The animation uses an odd art style, which may be initially off-putting, but a few episodes in, it becomes clear that this animation is to a high standard, just done in an odd style. The voice acting also seems fairly amateur at first, but as the show goes on and you get to know the characters and the world, the voice acting actually works perfectly in unison with the way that the show is written.
There isn’t much more to say, this show has hardly any negative qualities, it is one of the best animated shows that I have seen in the last decade and it is totally my kind of humour.
There isn’t much more to say, this show has hardly any negative qualities, it is one of the best animated shows that I have seen in the last decade and it is totally my kind of humour.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sanctuary in Books
Apr 27, 2018
rating: 3.8/5
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Mrs. Everything in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Jo and Bethie, sisters growing up in 1950s Detroit, are leading rather rigid lives. Jo is the troubled and angry older sister--the "different" one, while Bethie is the adored, perfect younger sister. Jo feels completely misunderstood by their mother, Sarah, but at least she has their father to act as a go-between. But, as the sisters grow up and move out, they somehow find their roles and lives changing. Bethie becomes the free spirit: the one unable to settle down and please their mother. Meanwhile, Jo marries and leads a picture-perfect life with her husband and children. Yet, deep down, neither sister is truly happy. Is it too late for either Jo or Bethie to find the life they really want?
This is a really wonderful novel from Jennifer Weiner. In the beginning, she states that she always wanted to write about a woman like her mom, who was born in the 40s, came of age in the 60s, married and had children, but then divorced and ended up falling in love with a woman. By then, times had changed and she could live a very different life than when she was born. Framing the story in this way makes perfect sense, and I think Weiner has more than fulfilled her goal. She's written a gorgeous and sweeping epic novel, starting with Jo and Bethie as children and continuing throughout the majority of their lives.
The novel, as mentioned, starts with Jo and Bethie as kids, moving into a new house in Michigan. Each is hopeful for a new start to their small kid-sized lives. Already Jo is feeling different. The book is told from both Jo and Bethie's perspectives, and Weiner does a wonderful job of not only capturing each of their own unique voices, but telling the story from their perspective at that particular time period.
"But maybe, in this new place, she could make a fresh start. Maybe here, she could be a good girl."
From the beginning, we clearly see how much trouble Jo is to her mother, and how she struggles with her feelings of being different. She's a tomboy who hates dresses and loves sports. She doesn't want to date the boys that her other classmates fawn over. I had no idea that the book was going to cover Jo's sexuality in this way, and it was such a pleasant surprise. It's so well-done. I loved the unexpected storyline about this intelligent and strong girl/woman struggling with her sexual orientation during a time period where it not at all accepted: it was very poignant and touching.
"I am going to leave here, she thought. I am going to read, and I am going to write. I am going to find a girl who is brave enough to love me, and I am going to have the kind of life I want."
So this book touches on a lot of tough subjects--racism, immigration, feminism, sexual orientation, religion, sexual assault, and more. It offers a discussion on womanhood, motherhood, marriage, and the options available to women (or not). Perhaps in the hands of a lesser author, this would all be too much, but through Weiner's deft writing, it's really truly beautifully done. The book spans a huge time period, but it never feels rushed or as if too much is crammed in. Once you get into Jo and Bethie's story, you're there: you are part of the family. And truly, this is a story of family at its core. A bitter family, perhaps, at times. It's a story of how certain moments can change the course of your life. But it's also a story of love and sisterhood, in all its many forms.
"'You think I ruined your life? Well I think you ruined mine.'"
Overall, this is a really lovely book. It's heartbreaking at times, for sure, and I cried at the end, but it's a testament to how much I fell for these two sisters. Its story of strength and love is a wonderful theme. It's a book for and about women, with some excellent messaging about women and society. (Wow, so much has changed and yet so little, it seems.) I certainly recommend this one. 4.5 stars.
This is a really wonderful novel from Jennifer Weiner. In the beginning, she states that she always wanted to write about a woman like her mom, who was born in the 40s, came of age in the 60s, married and had children, but then divorced and ended up falling in love with a woman. By then, times had changed and she could live a very different life than when she was born. Framing the story in this way makes perfect sense, and I think Weiner has more than fulfilled her goal. She's written a gorgeous and sweeping epic novel, starting with Jo and Bethie as children and continuing throughout the majority of their lives.
The novel, as mentioned, starts with Jo and Bethie as kids, moving into a new house in Michigan. Each is hopeful for a new start to their small kid-sized lives. Already Jo is feeling different. The book is told from both Jo and Bethie's perspectives, and Weiner does a wonderful job of not only capturing each of their own unique voices, but telling the story from their perspective at that particular time period.
"But maybe, in this new place, she could make a fresh start. Maybe here, she could be a good girl."
From the beginning, we clearly see how much trouble Jo is to her mother, and how she struggles with her feelings of being different. She's a tomboy who hates dresses and loves sports. She doesn't want to date the boys that her other classmates fawn over. I had no idea that the book was going to cover Jo's sexuality in this way, and it was such a pleasant surprise. It's so well-done. I loved the unexpected storyline about this intelligent and strong girl/woman struggling with her sexual orientation during a time period where it not at all accepted: it was very poignant and touching.
"I am going to leave here, she thought. I am going to read, and I am going to write. I am going to find a girl who is brave enough to love me, and I am going to have the kind of life I want."
So this book touches on a lot of tough subjects--racism, immigration, feminism, sexual orientation, religion, sexual assault, and more. It offers a discussion on womanhood, motherhood, marriage, and the options available to women (or not). Perhaps in the hands of a lesser author, this would all be too much, but through Weiner's deft writing, it's really truly beautifully done. The book spans a huge time period, but it never feels rushed or as if too much is crammed in. Once you get into Jo and Bethie's story, you're there: you are part of the family. And truly, this is a story of family at its core. A bitter family, perhaps, at times. It's a story of how certain moments can change the course of your life. But it's also a story of love and sisterhood, in all its many forms.
"'You think I ruined your life? Well I think you ruined mine.'"
Overall, this is a really lovely book. It's heartbreaking at times, for sure, and I cried at the end, but it's a testament to how much I fell for these two sisters. Its story of strength and love is a wonderful theme. It's a book for and about women, with some excellent messaging about women and society. (Wow, so much has changed and yet so little, it seems.) I certainly recommend this one. 4.5 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bad Frank (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
I love it when a movie can come completely out of nowhere and surprise this humble reviewer. Bad Frank is exactly that, A movie that on paper looks and sounds like most other Kidnap Revenge thrillers you may have seen over the years. But let me tell you that Bad Frank is far from some of the copy and paste garbage out there.
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).