Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film not quite sure what it’s trying to be.
Idris Elba after scoring a mammoth hit with UK TV’s “Luther” has really struggled to make a breakthrough as a leading man into A-grade movies. Although he’s had some strong supporting roles (“Molly’s Game” and “Star Trek Beyond” for example) and small bit parts in the Marvel universe, when he has landed a lead role they are in films best forgotton (e.g. “Bastille Day”; “The Dark Tower”). This is seldom down to his performance. Here he is given more of a chance to shine, in what is almost a two-hander with Kate Winslet for most of the film. And he is the best thing in the film: lots of the brooding look that he is so famous for.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Respect (2021) in Movies
Oct 14, 2021
Re, re, re, re, ‘spect… Just a little bit.
What with holidays and Bond, it’s taken me a few weeks to get to see this Aretha Franklin biopic. But I finally caught it this week.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
RavenclawPrincess913 (253 KP) rated Totally Psychic in Books
Oct 17, 2023
I loved Totally Psychic by Brigid Martin it was a lovely story.
In this story, the main character, Paloma Ferrer, is from a family of psychics. Her Abuela is famous for it. The story goes through how Paloma navigates through her new psychic abilities, which was very interesting. She ends up causing a lot of trouble throughout the story that she eventually learns from these mistakes.
There are five rules to follow that go along with her new abilities. Number one is that she must not force contact with any spirits because it can open up a portal to negative energy. Number two is that she must never talk to evil spirits because they can stick around and follow you everywhere. Number three, she must never ask how the specific spirit died. Number four, she must never repeat everything the spirit tells her. Some things are best left alone. She breaks this rule and learns the hard way her consequences for her actions. Number five, these readings are supposed to help heal the spirits and their realitive/friends. They aren't meant to damage them. Paloma learns the hard way when she breaks this one as well.
Before she moves her, Abuela gives her a gift to help with her psychic abilities. This gift includes: a mirror, blessed candles, a Book of Flowers, and a notebook. The notebook is meant for writing down any thoughts and visions Paloma has that is related to her abilities. The book of Flowers is information passed down from the ancestors before her about her specific ability. The candles are meant for protection and to close the portals. The special mirror is for her to help communicate with spirits and her family. All these objects play an important role in the story.
All of Paloma's family have special psychic abilities. Paloma is a flower medium, and her younger sister is able to record ghosts on videos through her phone. Their Abuela is a famous psychic while their Abuelito is a chef. Their Father is a chef and mother a florist. Their mom runs a shop out of her van. Their uncle Esteban is a numerologist, aunt Rose, an Astrologist, cousin Geraldo, an object reader, and cousin Dania, a culinary Clairvoyant. Their Aunt Maria is a dream analyst, and Uncle Julian and Uncle Raul are empaths and animal Psychics. All of their abilities play a part in the story and are quite interesting. My favorite would probably be Aunt Rosa's ability of being an Astrologist.
The plot and character development of this book is very well written. My favorite of the spirits has got to be Dustin and Oreo that scene of when he met Oreo was so cute. One character I disliked was Willows grandpa it was not ok/right for him to be so pushy towards Paloma sharing the family secret. Also, in some parts Paloma was in the right while others her mom was. In my opinion Paloma should have listened to her gut and never used the ouija board that led to so much trouble.
I really love the cover of the book it fits the story perfectly. If you love books that contain magic, definitely give this book a try.
In this story, the main character, Paloma Ferrer, is from a family of psychics. Her Abuela is famous for it. The story goes through how Paloma navigates through her new psychic abilities, which was very interesting. She ends up causing a lot of trouble throughout the story that she eventually learns from these mistakes.
There are five rules to follow that go along with her new abilities. Number one is that she must not force contact with any spirits because it can open up a portal to negative energy. Number two is that she must never talk to evil spirits because they can stick around and follow you everywhere. Number three, she must never ask how the specific spirit died. Number four, she must never repeat everything the spirit tells her. Some things are best left alone. She breaks this rule and learns the hard way her consequences for her actions. Number five, these readings are supposed to help heal the spirits and their realitive/friends. They aren't meant to damage them. Paloma learns the hard way when she breaks this one as well.
Before she moves her, Abuela gives her a gift to help with her psychic abilities. This gift includes: a mirror, blessed candles, a Book of Flowers, and a notebook. The notebook is meant for writing down any thoughts and visions Paloma has that is related to her abilities. The book of Flowers is information passed down from the ancestors before her about her specific ability. The candles are meant for protection and to close the portals. The special mirror is for her to help communicate with spirits and her family. All these objects play an important role in the story.
All of Paloma's family have special psychic abilities. Paloma is a flower medium, and her younger sister is able to record ghosts on videos through her phone. Their Abuela is a famous psychic while their Abuelito is a chef. Their Father is a chef and mother a florist. Their mom runs a shop out of her van. Their uncle Esteban is a numerologist, aunt Rose, an Astrologist, cousin Geraldo, an object reader, and cousin Dania, a culinary Clairvoyant. Their Aunt Maria is a dream analyst, and Uncle Julian and Uncle Raul are empaths and animal Psychics. All of their abilities play a part in the story and are quite interesting. My favorite would probably be Aunt Rosa's ability of being an Astrologist.
The plot and character development of this book is very well written. My favorite of the spirits has got to be Dustin and Oreo that scene of when he met Oreo was so cute. One character I disliked was Willows grandpa it was not ok/right for him to be so pushy towards Paloma sharing the family secret. Also, in some parts Paloma was in the right while others her mom was. In my opinion Paloma should have listened to her gut and never used the ouija board that led to so much trouble.
I really love the cover of the book it fits the story perfectly. If you love books that contain magic, definitely give this book a try.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) in Movies
Jan 13, 2023
Strong Acting aids Character Study
Back in 2008, Writer/Director Martin McDonagh scored an improbable hit with IN BRUGES, a tale of two hitmen “laying low” in…well…Bruges, Belgium while awaiting instructions from their boss. During this down time these two characters muse about the meanings of life and love in a wonderful, Oscar Nominated, character study.
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Deadly Curiosities in Books
Dec 19, 2017
I received an ARC copy of this book in exchange for my open and honest opinion. This in no way has influenced my opinion of the book.
***may contain spoilers***
This book by Martin is the first in a new series that centers around Cassidy, the owner of an antique shop called Trifles and Folly. At least, that is what she does on the surface. Her true purpose is much less mundane. She, along with her "silent partner" Sorren -- an ancient vampire -- and her employee and friend Teag, work for a group called the Alliance.
The Alliance has been around for centuries, and they do many things. However, one of the most important things they do is to rid the world of powerful and dangerous paranormal artifacts. Cassidy, a powerful psychometric -- someone who "reads" an item's energy and history -- uses her antique shop to help the Alliance with their endeavor. When people bring items into her shop, she holds them and sees the history that happened around those objects. If something in the object's history gives off warning signals that Cassidy thinks might make the item dangerous and/or susceptible to hauntings, possessions, etc., she buys the item and presents it to Sorren to take to the Alliance, where they dispose of it safely. (At least that is what they are SUPPOSEDLY DOING... since this is the beginning of a series, I'm wondering if eventually Cassidy will find out that the Alliance's motives aren't as pure as they claim them to be... but that is simply my speculation and neither here nor there concerning this book. :-p)
The fun in THIS book really begins when a lady brings in a pair of antique opera glasses to sell to Cassidy. Shortly after, Cassidy receives a phone call from a buyer saying that items she purchased from Cassidy's shop are causing a lot of ghostly-type problems. Cassidy and Teag realize that several items which should not have been causing negative effects are, in fact, creating all kinds of havoc. They decide to investigate the phenomena, and this investigation leads to all kinds of craziness, including voudon practitioners, dark sorcerers who should have been dead centuries before, a nasty demon, and a man who surrounds himself with hundreds of clocks everywhere he goes... And this is just a taste of what a reader finds in the pages of Martin's new book.
The storyline is interesting and unique. The characters are very likeable. The setting is lovely and perfect. The writing style is solid. And the action is well-paced, after the first thirty or so pages, which are a bit slow.
The only complaint I have with this novel is that at times it is a bit repetitive. For instance, one line might mention something about the blood-caked clothes she's wearing, and the next line will say the same thing, only with differently arranged words.
I wish I had marked an actual specific example of what I was talking about, but I didn't, so I can't provide an example, but I will give my own made up example to illustrate my point.
*Note: This is NOT a line from the actual book. Just something I made up to, again, illustrate the point.*
"She stepped into the room and shivered as the feeling of something watching her from the darkness crept over her. It seemed as though there was something she couldn't see in the darkness, but it could see her, and it was watching her. The thought made her shiver as it crept down her spine."
This didn't happen VERY often in the book, but it did happen enough times that I mentally made a note of it, and it irritated me. I'm a smart girl. You only have to tell me once, and I usually get the picture. Ha.
But overall, I really did enjoy the book, and I look forward to reading the next one when it comes out.
***may contain spoilers***
This book by Martin is the first in a new series that centers around Cassidy, the owner of an antique shop called Trifles and Folly. At least, that is what she does on the surface. Her true purpose is much less mundane. She, along with her "silent partner" Sorren -- an ancient vampire -- and her employee and friend Teag, work for a group called the Alliance.
The Alliance has been around for centuries, and they do many things. However, one of the most important things they do is to rid the world of powerful and dangerous paranormal artifacts. Cassidy, a powerful psychometric -- someone who "reads" an item's energy and history -- uses her antique shop to help the Alliance with their endeavor. When people bring items into her shop, she holds them and sees the history that happened around those objects. If something in the object's history gives off warning signals that Cassidy thinks might make the item dangerous and/or susceptible to hauntings, possessions, etc., she buys the item and presents it to Sorren to take to the Alliance, where they dispose of it safely. (At least that is what they are SUPPOSEDLY DOING... since this is the beginning of a series, I'm wondering if eventually Cassidy will find out that the Alliance's motives aren't as pure as they claim them to be... but that is simply my speculation and neither here nor there concerning this book. :-p)
The fun in THIS book really begins when a lady brings in a pair of antique opera glasses to sell to Cassidy. Shortly after, Cassidy receives a phone call from a buyer saying that items she purchased from Cassidy's shop are causing a lot of ghostly-type problems. Cassidy and Teag realize that several items which should not have been causing negative effects are, in fact, creating all kinds of havoc. They decide to investigate the phenomena, and this investigation leads to all kinds of craziness, including voudon practitioners, dark sorcerers who should have been dead centuries before, a nasty demon, and a man who surrounds himself with hundreds of clocks everywhere he goes... And this is just a taste of what a reader finds in the pages of Martin's new book.
The storyline is interesting and unique. The characters are very likeable. The setting is lovely and perfect. The writing style is solid. And the action is well-paced, after the first thirty or so pages, which are a bit slow.
The only complaint I have with this novel is that at times it is a bit repetitive. For instance, one line might mention something about the blood-caked clothes she's wearing, and the next line will say the same thing, only with differently arranged words.
I wish I had marked an actual specific example of what I was talking about, but I didn't, so I can't provide an example, but I will give my own made up example to illustrate my point.
*Note: This is NOT a line from the actual book. Just something I made up to, again, illustrate the point.*
"She stepped into the room and shivered as the feeling of something watching her from the darkness crept over her. It seemed as though there was something she couldn't see in the darkness, but it could see her, and it was watching her. The thought made her shiver as it crept down her spine."
This didn't happen VERY often in the book, but it did happen enough times that I mentally made a note of it, and it irritated me. I'm a smart girl. You only have to tell me once, and I usually get the picture. Ha.
But overall, I really did enjoy the book, and I look forward to reading the next one when it comes out.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated Bats In The Belfry in Books
Feb 26, 2018 (Updated Feb 27, 2018)
A Cosy Crime sleeper worthy of resurrection
I’m a huge fan of Cosy Crime, I cut my grown-up reading teeth on Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers, so it should be no surprise that I’m a big fan of the British Library’s inspired decision to republish lost Golden Age novels.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 96 Minutes (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 96 Minutes starts by introducing us to all the characters involved, we have Lena (Serratos) a young woman questioning her relationship choice, Raymond (Martin) working hard at school and a job for Duane (Oyelowo), Kevin (Trautmann) an angry young man who doesn’t enjoy his life where his mother has caused problems, Dre (Ross) a young man that is finally achieving his grades but won’t leave his past behind him and Carley (Snow) a student that is studying law. All of this is leads to a carjacking gone wrong.
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 22 Bullets (2013) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: 22 Bullets starts when retired Mafia godfather Charly Mattei (Reno) is ambushed by multiply gun man who riddle his body with bullets, 22 in his body and somehow, he survives the attack. The man behind the attack Tony Zacchia (Merad) wants the job finished so he can take the control he wants over the business, while detective Marie Goldman (Fois) has her own scores to settle with Mafia who were behind her husband’s and fellow cops’ death.
Charly brings his trusted friends back together to go into a full-blown war with Tony which see the bodies piling up, until he can get his hands-on Tony himself.
Characters – Charly Mattei is the retired Mafia godfather that walked away from the business with strict rules on how it will continue, he gets left for dead by the new boss who wants to play by his own rules. Now the bear has been poked he will seek revenge on everyone who tried to eliminate him, no matter how many bodies get left in his way, he knows this is the only way to keep his family safe. Tony Zacchia has taken over the business, he doesn’t want to play by the same rules though, he needs to take care of Charly before changing the rules and after that attempts fails, he starts to throw waves of men as Charly to finish the job. Martin is the closest friend to Charly, he will help make the connections to who else was involved in the assassination attempt. Marie Goldman is a cop that lost her husband to the Mafia, she has wanted to take them down for years now and this will be her best chance after she get put in the middle of the blood war.
Performances – Jean Reno is fantastic in the leading role of the film, he brings back the type of performance we saw in Leon where he is the cold-hearted killer with the heart of gold. Kad Merad, Jean-Pierre Darroussin are both good in the supporting role, though it can be easy to mix the two up. Marina Fios is good as the detective trying to get to the bottom of everything with her own tragic back past.
Story – The story here follows a former Mafia Godfather that goes on a revenge mission against the new godfather after he failed to have his assassinated bring France into a battle for power between the two leading sides in the war. This does play out like a revenge thriller with plenty of bullets, we have seen this done most recently with John Wick and this follows the same tone and body numbers you would be seeing in this one. The added side story of the cop wanting to final takedown the person who killed her husband adds to everything making this feel like a three-way war between the sides. The does play out how you would imagine which is great to see and the story doesn’t hold back either.
Action/Crime – The action is brutal when it comes to the bullet wound, even if certain moments can become overkill when it comes to the bullets flying. The crime world shown gives us an insight into the world in and out of the world with people wanting out or control.
Settings – The film is set in Marseille which shows us a new type of city for a crime film to take place in, we have all the locations you would imagine for a Mafia film.
Scene of the Movie – Dinner meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes overkill.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action revenge thriller, that puts Jean Reno front and centre on a bloody rampage, one well worth watching for the action fans.
Overall: Enjoyable Action Film.
Charly brings his trusted friends back together to go into a full-blown war with Tony which see the bodies piling up, until he can get his hands-on Tony himself.
Characters – Charly Mattei is the retired Mafia godfather that walked away from the business with strict rules on how it will continue, he gets left for dead by the new boss who wants to play by his own rules. Now the bear has been poked he will seek revenge on everyone who tried to eliminate him, no matter how many bodies get left in his way, he knows this is the only way to keep his family safe. Tony Zacchia has taken over the business, he doesn’t want to play by the same rules though, he needs to take care of Charly before changing the rules and after that attempts fails, he starts to throw waves of men as Charly to finish the job. Martin is the closest friend to Charly, he will help make the connections to who else was involved in the assassination attempt. Marie Goldman is a cop that lost her husband to the Mafia, she has wanted to take them down for years now and this will be her best chance after she get put in the middle of the blood war.
Performances – Jean Reno is fantastic in the leading role of the film, he brings back the type of performance we saw in Leon where he is the cold-hearted killer with the heart of gold. Kad Merad, Jean-Pierre Darroussin are both good in the supporting role, though it can be easy to mix the two up. Marina Fios is good as the detective trying to get to the bottom of everything with her own tragic back past.
Story – The story here follows a former Mafia Godfather that goes on a revenge mission against the new godfather after he failed to have his assassinated bring France into a battle for power between the two leading sides in the war. This does play out like a revenge thriller with plenty of bullets, we have seen this done most recently with John Wick and this follows the same tone and body numbers you would be seeing in this one. The added side story of the cop wanting to final takedown the person who killed her husband adds to everything making this feel like a three-way war between the sides. The does play out how you would imagine which is great to see and the story doesn’t hold back either.
Action/Crime – The action is brutal when it comes to the bullet wound, even if certain moments can become overkill when it comes to the bullets flying. The crime world shown gives us an insight into the world in and out of the world with people wanting out or control.
Settings – The film is set in Marseille which shows us a new type of city for a crime film to take place in, we have all the locations you would imagine for a Mafia film.
Scene of the Movie – Dinner meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes overkill.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action revenge thriller, that puts Jean Reno front and centre on a bloody rampage, one well worth watching for the action fans.
Overall: Enjoyable Action Film.