Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1064 KP) rated The Problem (Single Dad Support Group #1) in Books
May 30, 2020
bloody LOVED this!
Independent reviewer for Gay Romance Reviews, I was gifted the audio version of this book.
I'm turning this review on it's head, writing about the narrator first, cos, you know, I can, it's my review :-)
Michael Ferraiuolo has been a bit of an enigma for me, I either love his work, or hate it, I won't lie. But THIS time? I freaking LOVED it!
Alex has synesthesia, which means he sees his emotions in colour. The whole book, Alex was seeing how Laurence was affecting him, and he wasn't sure what it meant. The best bits of this book were when Alex was describing his colours/emotions, to Laurence, to himself. I have no doubt I would not have been so moved by those scenes, had I READ this book. Ferraiuolo nails it, he really does. Moved me to tears in places!
Laurence is solid, a good man, with his 16 year old son, Matthew. I liked how, very quicky, he was wanting more from Alex, not just for the sex(but PHEW!) no. But MORE. He has lived his life for his son, and in one meeting, Alex makes him see that he still has life to live, that he does not have to been locked away. Matthew is growing, making *quite literally* a life for himself. Laurence needs Alex, and rapidly, Alex sees that he needs Laurence too.
I loved the voices given to all the characters, but I especially enjoyed the voices given to the Support Group when they were chatting. It annoyed me a little bit at first, I will admit, but once I got used to the way the group chats were delivered, I loved them.
When the reason Alex behaved the way he did, before Laurence, becomes clear, I was out walking. And I stopped in the middle of the street, and cried. And cried to whole way through that bit. THEN, when other things happen?? I stopped in the middle of the street, and NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO came out my mouth, so loud, the woman across the road shouted to see if I was okay! I did NOT see that coming at me, no way, never in a million years!
So, yeah, loved the book, and loved the narration.
And now I'm left with a bit of a pickle! This is the only one of the series that is available in AUDIO, the books are out, all 6, but I don't like to flip from listening to reading in a series (or vice versa) So my pickle is, do I READ the next one? Or do I wait (im)patiently for the next one in audio? ARGH! Such decisions!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I'm turning this review on it's head, writing about the narrator first, cos, you know, I can, it's my review :-)
Michael Ferraiuolo has been a bit of an enigma for me, I either love his work, or hate it, I won't lie. But THIS time? I freaking LOVED it!
Alex has synesthesia, which means he sees his emotions in colour. The whole book, Alex was seeing how Laurence was affecting him, and he wasn't sure what it meant. The best bits of this book were when Alex was describing his colours/emotions, to Laurence, to himself. I have no doubt I would not have been so moved by those scenes, had I READ this book. Ferraiuolo nails it, he really does. Moved me to tears in places!
Laurence is solid, a good man, with his 16 year old son, Matthew. I liked how, very quicky, he was wanting more from Alex, not just for the sex(but PHEW!) no. But MORE. He has lived his life for his son, and in one meeting, Alex makes him see that he still has life to live, that he does not have to been locked away. Matthew is growing, making *quite literally* a life for himself. Laurence needs Alex, and rapidly, Alex sees that he needs Laurence too.
I loved the voices given to all the characters, but I especially enjoyed the voices given to the Support Group when they were chatting. It annoyed me a little bit at first, I will admit, but once I got used to the way the group chats were delivered, I loved them.
When the reason Alex behaved the way he did, before Laurence, becomes clear, I was out walking. And I stopped in the middle of the street, and cried. And cried to whole way through that bit. THEN, when other things happen?? I stopped in the middle of the street, and NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO came out my mouth, so loud, the woman across the road shouted to see if I was okay! I did NOT see that coming at me, no way, never in a million years!
So, yeah, loved the book, and loved the narration.
And now I'm left with a bit of a pickle! This is the only one of the series that is available in AUDIO, the books are out, all 6, but I don't like to flip from listening to reading in a series (or vice versa) So my pickle is, do I READ the next one? Or do I wait (im)patiently for the next one in audio? ARGH! Such decisions!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
David McK (3180 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
Sci-Fi romance starring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence (with support from Michael Sheen and Laurence Fishbourne) as two travellers aboard an interstellar vessel, who awaken out of hibernation 30 years into a 90 year journey (I think those are both right) to their new home planet, with no means of getting back to sleep or of waking up any other passengers or crew.
What follows, then, mostly - of necessity - follows those two characters (and Sheen's android bartender), asking just what you would do in their circumstances? How would you live out your life?
Beautiful cinematography and some fancy effects, however, can not fully make up for (at times) as dull as dishwater and leaden pacing ...
What follows, then, mostly - of necessity - follows those two characters (and Sheen's android bartender), asking just what you would do in their circumstances? How would you live out your life?
Beautiful cinematography and some fancy effects, however, can not fully make up for (at times) as dull as dishwater and leaden pacing ...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Impressively good
I'm going to admit something now, but I don't think I've ever seen a Clint Eastwood starring film before. Ive seen some of his directing efforts (and really liked them), but this is the first time I've seen him acting - and after seeing this, I know I've been missing out.
This is very much a slow burner. It's not so slow that nothing happens but moves at its own steady pace that just about keeps your attention and hooks you in. This is helped mostly by a stellar performance from Clint Eastwood and a great script, which inserts some fairly humorous lines into what would otherwise be a very serious subject. The plot itself is a simple and enjoyable story that kept me enthralled for the entire 2 hours. The only downside is that most of the fantastic cast apart from Eastwood himself - Bradley Cooper, Michael Peña and Laurence Fishburne especially - are sadly underused. It's great to see them, it's just a shame that we don't see them enough.
Aside from this though, it's a very good enjoyable film that's absolutely worth a watch.
This is very much a slow burner. It's not so slow that nothing happens but moves at its own steady pace that just about keeps your attention and hooks you in. This is helped mostly by a stellar performance from Clint Eastwood and a great script, which inserts some fairly humorous lines into what would otherwise be a very serious subject. The plot itself is a simple and enjoyable story that kept me enthralled for the entire 2 hours. The only downside is that most of the fantastic cast apart from Eastwood himself - Bradley Cooper, Michael Peña and Laurence Fishburne especially - are sadly underused. It's great to see them, it's just a shame that we don't see them enough.
Aside from this though, it's a very good enjoyable film that's absolutely worth a watch.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Thinking Clint Eastwood is a great actor is sadly not enough to get you through this film.
We open with what honestly reminded me of something you might have seen in Last Of The Summer Wine but with a tinge of melancholy. Those were actual things I wrote down in the screening, it's not often that I can nail my feelings about things like that the instant I see them.
There's some solid acting from some of the support cast. Ignacio Serricchio (amazing in Bones), Robert LaSardo (pops up in lots of different shows and films I watch), Michael Peña
(aaaaahhhh, why didn't he get more screen time?) and Laurence Fishburne (again, probably didn't get enough screen time) gave their best with the limited moments they had. Bradley Cooper managed to eek out some more lines luckily and I loved the interactions between him and Eastwood.
Eastwood himself played the dawdling old man very well, at this point you have to assume that some of that comes naturally rather than from his acting talent. He managed to get himself a choice role with lots of lovely semi-clad ladies in it that's for sure.
After seeing this I'm wondering if it could have benefited from a shift in focus. The family set up at the beginning was a bit drawn out and could easily have lost a lot of it's run time. Had they moved those minutes over to the police/DEA side and made it more crime than drama I think it might have given it a little injection of pace.
The family angle was the main drag for me, it felt much longer than needed but beyond that the acting was the weakest overall. Coming in right at the bottom was Dianne Wiest. I've been thinking about it trying to work out why I didn't like her part as Mary. Sometimes the characters themselves are unlikeable, sometimes it's a poor script, but I think it was just the way she played it. I can think of a couple of other actresses who in the same part could have struck the right note.
In the end I think there was a lot of potential missed, it felt like it spread itself a little too far into the drama side. Some of the bits are a little crazy but get away with being believable... except when they try to make me believe that an octogenarian can work out how to use a smart phone.
What you should do
I probably would say not to bother, there are a lot of other films out there that have a lot more excitement to them.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd like to leave mt keys in the glove compartment of my car and come back to a stash of cash. Alas I think I'd come back to a missing car.
We open with what honestly reminded me of something you might have seen in Last Of The Summer Wine but with a tinge of melancholy. Those were actual things I wrote down in the screening, it's not often that I can nail my feelings about things like that the instant I see them.
There's some solid acting from some of the support cast. Ignacio Serricchio (amazing in Bones), Robert LaSardo (pops up in lots of different shows and films I watch), Michael Peña
(aaaaahhhh, why didn't he get more screen time?) and Laurence Fishburne (again, probably didn't get enough screen time) gave their best with the limited moments they had. Bradley Cooper managed to eek out some more lines luckily and I loved the interactions between him and Eastwood.
Eastwood himself played the dawdling old man very well, at this point you have to assume that some of that comes naturally rather than from his acting talent. He managed to get himself a choice role with lots of lovely semi-clad ladies in it that's for sure.
After seeing this I'm wondering if it could have benefited from a shift in focus. The family set up at the beginning was a bit drawn out and could easily have lost a lot of it's run time. Had they moved those minutes over to the police/DEA side and made it more crime than drama I think it might have given it a little injection of pace.
The family angle was the main drag for me, it felt much longer than needed but beyond that the acting was the weakest overall. Coming in right at the bottom was Dianne Wiest. I've been thinking about it trying to work out why I didn't like her part as Mary. Sometimes the characters themselves are unlikeable, sometimes it's a poor script, but I think it was just the way she played it. I can think of a couple of other actresses who in the same part could have struck the right note.
In the end I think there was a lot of potential missed, it felt like it spread itself a little too far into the drama side. Some of the bits are a little crazy but get away with being believable... except when they try to make me believe that an octogenarian can work out how to use a smart phone.
What you should do
I probably would say not to bother, there are a lot of other films out there that have a lot more excitement to them.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd like to leave mt keys in the glove compartment of my car and come back to a stash of cash. Alas I think I'd come back to a missing car.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Feb 7, 2019 (Updated Feb 7, 2019)
"You See, My Mule Don't Like People Laughing..."
I saw The Mule last night and thought it was excellent. Clint Eastwood directs and stars as a 90 year old drug mule working for the Cartel after losing his horticultural business due to the rise of online shopping. Clint is the crux that this whole movie is relying in as it's director and main protagonist and he carries off the task with ease. He plays this character of Earl with a charm and warmth that he has rarely been seen portraying in any of his other harsher, grumpier characters in movies like Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby. It is clear that age has not slowed him down a bit and he doesn't miss a beat here, pulling off an extremely well told if unlikely story.
The rest of the cast are pretty great too. I have read some complaints from other reviewers who feel that Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena are underused here in their roles as the DEA agents leading the investigation to catch this mule. In my opinion though, there is an art to the more subtle performances that the two give here and they work well, never detracting from the main character whom this story is built around. Andy Garcia is also great playing the cartel boss that Earl is driving for. I would say that more could have been done with the talent of Laurence Fishburne's and Clifton Collins Jr's characters, but the actors themselves were solid in their respective roles.
The movie is also very well shot, even though this is the first time in a good number of years that Clint has not worked with his long time collaborator behind the lens Tom Stern, instead opting for Yves Belanger. The choices made for the soundtrack also work well in the film as they not only all manage to line up with what is going on at that certain point in the movie's plot, but they also add to the overall tone and desired feel that the story is conveying.
The only negative that I took away was Julio's odd character motivation when his character first showed up. Right from the get go, he seemed to only have a deep-seated resentment for Earl, even though he had literally just met him. Unfortunately, there is never really any reason given for it either, it's not like he would be jealous of this elderly drug mule and the rest of the Cartel crew seem totally fine with having Earl driving for them. The motivation for his immediate despising of Earl just didn't make much sense and seemed fairly jarring and uncalled for at first. Although it made sense by the end of the film for the sake of that character's story arc, it just felt a bit weird when we first meet the character and he has such a strong hatred for this harmless old man.
Overall, The Mule is a solid movie that tells a story that is unbelievably based on a real 90 year old man that transported a huge quantity of drugs for the Cartel. Clint tells this story with a tenderness and charm that I wasn't really expecting going in and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Sad to see the academy ignore this film, especially since they usually recognise Clint's efforts. Regardless, this is a great watch and if you are a fan of Clint's other movies, then this is a must see.
The rest of the cast are pretty great too. I have read some complaints from other reviewers who feel that Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena are underused here in their roles as the DEA agents leading the investigation to catch this mule. In my opinion though, there is an art to the more subtle performances that the two give here and they work well, never detracting from the main character whom this story is built around. Andy Garcia is also great playing the cartel boss that Earl is driving for. I would say that more could have been done with the talent of Laurence Fishburne's and Clifton Collins Jr's characters, but the actors themselves were solid in their respective roles.
The movie is also very well shot, even though this is the first time in a good number of years that Clint has not worked with his long time collaborator behind the lens Tom Stern, instead opting for Yves Belanger. The choices made for the soundtrack also work well in the film as they not only all manage to line up with what is going on at that certain point in the movie's plot, but they also add to the overall tone and desired feel that the story is conveying.
The only negative that I took away was Julio's odd character motivation when his character first showed up. Right from the get go, he seemed to only have a deep-seated resentment for Earl, even though he had literally just met him. Unfortunately, there is never really any reason given for it either, it's not like he would be jealous of this elderly drug mule and the rest of the Cartel crew seem totally fine with having Earl driving for them. The motivation for his immediate despising of Earl just didn't make much sense and seemed fairly jarring and uncalled for at first. Although it made sense by the end of the film for the sake of that character's story arc, it just felt a bit weird when we first meet the character and he has such a strong hatred for this harmless old man.
Overall, The Mule is a solid movie that tells a story that is unbelievably based on a real 90 year old man that transported a huge quantity of drugs for the Cartel. Clint tells this story with a tenderness and charm that I wasn't really expecting going in and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Sad to see the academy ignore this film, especially since they usually recognise Clint's efforts. Regardless, this is a great watch and if you are a fan of Clint's other movies, then this is a must see.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.