Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Black Ops.
There was a joke on the internet the other day that made me laugh and laugh. Virtually the only white people in “Black Panther” are the Hobbit/LOTR stars Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis…. they are the Tolkein white guys! It’s actually getting to feel quite isolating as an ‘average white guy’ at the movies! After a plethora of #SheDo films about empowered women, now comes the first black-centred Marvel film… stuffed full of powerful women too!
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Nowhere Girls in Books
Dec 24, 2017
powerful (2 more)
timely
honest
Grace and her family have just moved to a new town after her Baptist preacher mother has a spiritual experience and their small Kentucky town decides she is far too progressive for their community. Grace is shunned and the family basically flees for more open-minded pastures. Erin is a beautiful girl who loves science and Star Trek: The Next Generation. She also has Asperger's and a secret. Rosina is a lesbian struggling to be herself within the confines of her conservative Mexican family. She dreams only of playing music and escaping her town, instead of taking care of her gaggle of cousins and working in her uncle's restaurant. Grace soon learns that the former occupant of her new house was Lucy Moynihan, who accused some popular boys of rape. Lucy wasn't believed, had a breakdown, and left town. While she's never been one to stand up for anything before, this angers Grace in a way she cannot fully describe. Erin and Rosina empathize with Lucy's situation, too. So the three find themselves an unlikely trio, and they do something even more unlikely: they form a secret group, made up entirely of girls, to protest the horrible culture at their school--a culture that condones things like rape and mistreatment of women. The group quickly takes off and the three girls realize that the group--and this cause--is far bigger than themselves.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
Grace and her family have just moved to a new town after her Baptist preacher mother has a spiritual experience and their small Kentucky town decides she is far too progressive for their community. Grace is shunned and the family basically flees for more open-minded pastures. Erin is a beautiful girl who loves science and Star Trek: The Next Generation. She also has Asperger's and a secret. Rosina is a lesbian struggling to be herself within the confines of her conservative Mexican family. She dreams only of playing music and escaping her town, instead of taking care of her gaggle of cousins and working in her uncle's restaurant. Grace soon learns that the former occupant of her new house was Lucy Moynihan, who accused some popular boys of rape. Lucy wasn't believed, had a breakdown, and left town. While she's never been one to stand up for anything before, this angers Grace in a way she cannot fully describe. Erin and Rosina empathize with Lucy's situation, too. So the three find themselves an unlikely trio, and they do something even more unlikely: they form a secret group, made up entirely of girls, to protest the horrible culture at their school--a culture that condones things like rape and mistreatment of women. The group quickly takes off and the three girls realize that the group--and this cause--is far bigger than themselves.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
Grace and her family have just moved to a new town after her Baptist preacher mother has a spiritual experience and their small Kentucky town decides she is far too progressive for their community. Grace is shunned and the family basically flees for more open-minded pastures. Erin is a beautiful girl who loves science and Star Trek: The Next Generation. She also has Asperger's and a secret. Rosina is a lesbian struggling to be herself within the confines of her conservative Mexican family. She dreams only of playing music and escaping her town, instead of taking care of her gaggle of cousins and working in her uncle's restaurant. Grace soon learns that the former occupant of her new house was Lucy Moynihan, who accused some popular boys of rape. Lucy wasn't believed, had a breakdown, and left town. While she's never been one to stand up for anything before, this angers Grace in a way she cannot fully describe. Erin and Rosina empathize with Lucy's situation, too. So the three find themselves an unlikely trio, and they do something even more unlikely: they form a secret group, made up entirely of girls, to protest the horrible culture at their school--a culture that condones things like rape and mistreatment of women. The group quickly takes off and the three girls realize that the group--and this cause--is far bigger than themselves.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Anything But Typical in Books
Apr 27, 2018
nything but Typical by Nora Raleigh Baskin anything-but-typical
Rating: 4.5/5
<b> My Summary: </b> <i> Jason is Autistic. Letters define his life, and he thinks in full complete sentences, no contractions, and perfect grammar. Every morning, a word pops into his head. He says it out loud while he brushes his teeth. He has been able to spell any word he has ever seen perfectly since the age of four, but he has no control over his body. When he gets stressed out, his hands start to fly away from his body, and his head begins to buzz, and feels like it’s going to fly away. He can’t keep his body together. He can’t talk to people very well, if at all. He can’t look at people’s faces, and he doesn’t respond to questions. He has no social skills. But, his mind is full of everything in the room—the sound of the air conditioner, the smell of his teacher’s shampoo, the light in the room, the echo of slamming doors… Jason has permission to come home from school when he needs too if he can’t handle it. Jason’s outlet is writing. He writes stories online at storyboard. He meets a girl named PhoenixBird online, and she loves his stories. They become friends. That’s a huge thing for Jason—they start talking about things like school drama and pets instead of grades and story ideas. She tells him that her name is Rebecca. They’re real friends now. But then Jason finds out that he has to meet his friend at the storyboard convention, and he’s afraid Rebecca won’t like him anymore because she will think he’s weird, just like everyone else who has met him. It’s the end of his world. Boy meets girl. Boy gets girl. Boy looses girl. Isn’t that the way all the stories go? </i>
<b> My Thoughts: </b> My brother is Autistic. Or rather, he has Aspergers syndrome, which is on the Autism spectrum. I thought I understood autistic kids pretty well. I was wrong.
From the first page I could hear Jason’s voice, the way he spoke, the way he thought. It was all very clear—and fascinating. I can’t really say much about this book, simply because it’s something you have to read for yourself and understand. You have to get inside Jason’s head and listen to what he has to say, and learn from him. He’s a brilliant person, and personally I think he understands some things better than most “normal” people.
<b> The Characters: </b> the characters were the most important aspect of this book. I could feel Jason’s confusion over little things that set him off and his stress about meeting his would-be girlfriend, and his wandering mind that went from one thought to another. Most people wouldn’t connect thoughts the way Jason did. But while I was inside his head, I understood that connection a little better. All the characters were very well developed and strong, too. Mother had her quirks and was technology-illiterate. Dad was quiet but wanted everyone to be happy. Little brother worshiped the ground Jason walked on and had his own little compulsions. Jason was my favorite character, though.
<b> The Plot: </b> the plot didn’t really matter in this book. Although it was very well thought out and executed, the point of this book was Jason and his mind, not what happened. With that in mind—the plot was very plausible, realistic, and easy to follow. There was a little bit of jumping around, from past tense to present, telling a story from his earlier experiences, but not much. Jason’s life is very interesting, because every day things mean different things to him than they do to us. Every little thing that we experience is special or different or scary or exhilarating for Jason.
<b> Writing: </b> This book is written in first person, so I was able to get inside Jason’s head from the very first sentence: “Most people like to talk in their own language.” The words were beautiful, and I was wrapped up in the immediately. I loved it.
<b> Recommendation: </b> I would want everyone to read this book—everyone. If you can read, you should read it. If your kid can’t read, read it out loud to them. If your grandma is blind, buy the audio book. It’s fantastic, enjoyable, and perfect for any age group.
<u> This is one of my favorite books that I’ve read in a long time. I’m going to make my mom read it, and all my friends read it, because it was so fantastic. Maybe now I can understand my autistic brother just a little bit more. </u>
<i> Thank you to Krissy at NPCCPL for providing this ARC for review. I did not receive any compensation in exchange for this review. Please see my disclaimer for more information. </i>
~Haleyknitz
Rating: 4.5/5
<b> My Summary: </b> <i> Jason is Autistic. Letters define his life, and he thinks in full complete sentences, no contractions, and perfect grammar. Every morning, a word pops into his head. He says it out loud while he brushes his teeth. He has been able to spell any word he has ever seen perfectly since the age of four, but he has no control over his body. When he gets stressed out, his hands start to fly away from his body, and his head begins to buzz, and feels like it’s going to fly away. He can’t keep his body together. He can’t talk to people very well, if at all. He can’t look at people’s faces, and he doesn’t respond to questions. He has no social skills. But, his mind is full of everything in the room—the sound of the air conditioner, the smell of his teacher’s shampoo, the light in the room, the echo of slamming doors… Jason has permission to come home from school when he needs too if he can’t handle it. Jason’s outlet is writing. He writes stories online at storyboard. He meets a girl named PhoenixBird online, and she loves his stories. They become friends. That’s a huge thing for Jason—they start talking about things like school drama and pets instead of grades and story ideas. She tells him that her name is Rebecca. They’re real friends now. But then Jason finds out that he has to meet his friend at the storyboard convention, and he’s afraid Rebecca won’t like him anymore because she will think he’s weird, just like everyone else who has met him. It’s the end of his world. Boy meets girl. Boy gets girl. Boy looses girl. Isn’t that the way all the stories go? </i>
<b> My Thoughts: </b> My brother is Autistic. Or rather, he has Aspergers syndrome, which is on the Autism spectrum. I thought I understood autistic kids pretty well. I was wrong.
From the first page I could hear Jason’s voice, the way he spoke, the way he thought. It was all very clear—and fascinating. I can’t really say much about this book, simply because it’s something you have to read for yourself and understand. You have to get inside Jason’s head and listen to what he has to say, and learn from him. He’s a brilliant person, and personally I think he understands some things better than most “normal” people.
<b> The Characters: </b> the characters were the most important aspect of this book. I could feel Jason’s confusion over little things that set him off and his stress about meeting his would-be girlfriend, and his wandering mind that went from one thought to another. Most people wouldn’t connect thoughts the way Jason did. But while I was inside his head, I understood that connection a little better. All the characters were very well developed and strong, too. Mother had her quirks and was technology-illiterate. Dad was quiet but wanted everyone to be happy. Little brother worshiped the ground Jason walked on and had his own little compulsions. Jason was my favorite character, though.
<b> The Plot: </b> the plot didn’t really matter in this book. Although it was very well thought out and executed, the point of this book was Jason and his mind, not what happened. With that in mind—the plot was very plausible, realistic, and easy to follow. There was a little bit of jumping around, from past tense to present, telling a story from his earlier experiences, but not much. Jason’s life is very interesting, because every day things mean different things to him than they do to us. Every little thing that we experience is special or different or scary or exhilarating for Jason.
<b> Writing: </b> This book is written in first person, so I was able to get inside Jason’s head from the very first sentence: “Most people like to talk in their own language.” The words were beautiful, and I was wrapped up in the immediately. I loved it.
<b> Recommendation: </b> I would want everyone to read this book—everyone. If you can read, you should read it. If your kid can’t read, read it out loud to them. If your grandma is blind, buy the audio book. It’s fantastic, enjoyable, and perfect for any age group.
<u> This is one of my favorite books that I’ve read in a long time. I’m going to make my mom read it, and all my friends read it, because it was so fantastic. Maybe now I can understand my autistic brother just a little bit more. </u>
<i> Thank you to Krissy at NPCCPL for providing this ARC for review. I did not receive any compensation in exchange for this review. Please see my disclaimer for more information. </i>
~Haleyknitz
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Over the Holidays in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Summary: Vanessa is experiencing craziness from the holidays like she never has before: her husband’s relatives (who are extremely annoying) are visiting and taking over her holiday while he is out of town until Christmas eve, which means she has to entertain them, her sister is acting like she’s unrelated because she’s so wrapped up in her art (which she’s struggling with) and she’s trying desperately not to have an affair with the hansom playwright she’s working with…
My thoughts: It was really hard for me to see what the point of this book was, but i think it centered around holiday traditions, gifts, really weird relatives, and baking your pies instead of buying them from a store. there was no focus on the meaning of Christmas (Christ. hence, Christmas.) and i felt like the character’s decisions were not made based on what was right and the reason behind why it was right, but only to keep their dignity. the book seemed shallow in that sense. I really have a hard time understanding what these people were celebrating during Christmas—if you’re not celebrating the baby Jesus, what are you eating turkey for anyway?
The Plot: this book was a path through Christmas and New Year celebrations, so it took the four most important characters (Vanessa, her sister Thea, mother in-law Patience, and Patience’s daughter Libby) and told their Christmas stories from each of their perspectives. there were parts of the story that were really surprising—for instance, i didn’t expect what happened with Neil or Cal, and was very anxious to find out what happened.
The Characters: there were so many new characters all thrown at you at once in the beginning of the book, it’s a little tough to keep up with. Vanessa seemed to have her head on reasonably straight, which i liked. Thea though, out of all the characters, was the one who had the best grip on reality (maybe that’s just because she and I are both crazy temperamental artists, though). Patience (who was not patient) seemed trivial and silly and a little ditzy, which was perfect for her. I don’t think i was supposed to particularly like her. at least, i hope that’s the case. (because i didn’t.) Libby seemed melodramatic and had an overrated view of sex. but her love for her cousins made her endearing.
The Writing: there was a lot of swearing in this book. a lot. which really doesn’t bother me that much, because when i’m reading i skip over it and don’t really register it, but it might bother other people. the writing style in general seemed very casual, and some things were over described—i really don’t care if the toilet that she peed into was stainless steel or porcelain, and i don’t really want to know every detail of a woman’s Christmas shopping.
Recommendation and rating: I gave this book a 2 out of five, if you look on my side bar you see that I wrote “you might enjoy it, but you're really not missing anything if you skip it.” I rated it that way because I personally didn’t connect with this book (probably because of my view of Christmas being centered around Christ, not pie.) and would have lived to see tomorrow if I hadn’t read it. however, if you look below, there is a list of other blogs on this tour, and other people may tell you that it was fantastic. I guess this one just wasn’t for me. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a light quick fun read, ages 16+
check out the rest of the blog tour:
*Rundpinne: http://www.rundpinne.blogspot.com
*Frugal Plus: http://frugalplus.com/
*The Life (And Lies) of an Inanimate Flying Object:
http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/
*Drey’s Library: http://dreyslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Wendi’s Book Corner: http://wendisbookcorner.blogspot.com/
*Opinionated? Me? : http://readingwatchingliving.blogspot.com/
*Me, My Book and the Couch:
http://memybookandthecouch.blogspot.com/
*Libby’s Library News: http://www.libslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Bookin’ With Bingo: http://bookinwithbingo.blogspot.com/
*Books, Movies, and Chinese Food:
http://books-movies-chinesefood.blogspot.com/
*Psychotic State: http://www.psychoticstate.blogspot.com/
*Readaholic: http://bridget3420.blogspot.com/
*That’s A Novel Idea: http://thatsanovelidea.blogspot.com
*All About {N}: http://www.bookwormygirl.blogspot.com/
*Starting Fresh: http://startingfresh-gaby317.blogspot.com/
*A Sea of Books: http://aseaofbooks.blogspot.com/
*Just Another New Blog: http://justanothernewblog.blogspot.com/
*Blog Business World: http://www.blogbusinessworld.blogspot.com
*My Friend Amy: http://www.myfriendamysblog.com
*Cheryl’s Book Nook: http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/
*One Person’s Journey Through A World of Books:
http://bookjourney.wordpress.com/
*I Read: http://sumanam.wordpress.com/
*So Many Books, So Little Time:
http://purplg8r-somanybooks.blogspot.com/
*Keep on Booking: http://keeponbooking.blogspot.com
*Reading at the Beach: http://ilratb.blogspot.com/
*Found Not Lost: http://jmomfinds.amoores.com/
*Brizmus Blogs Books: http://brizmusblogsbooks.blogspot.com/
*Book Reviews by Buuklvr81: http://www.buuklvr81.blogspot.com/
Thank you to Sarah Reidy from Pocket Books for providing me with my review copy.
win this copy of my book at haleymathiot.blogspot.com
My thoughts: It was really hard for me to see what the point of this book was, but i think it centered around holiday traditions, gifts, really weird relatives, and baking your pies instead of buying them from a store. there was no focus on the meaning of Christmas (Christ. hence, Christmas.) and i felt like the character’s decisions were not made based on what was right and the reason behind why it was right, but only to keep their dignity. the book seemed shallow in that sense. I really have a hard time understanding what these people were celebrating during Christmas—if you’re not celebrating the baby Jesus, what are you eating turkey for anyway?
The Plot: this book was a path through Christmas and New Year celebrations, so it took the four most important characters (Vanessa, her sister Thea, mother in-law Patience, and Patience’s daughter Libby) and told their Christmas stories from each of their perspectives. there were parts of the story that were really surprising—for instance, i didn’t expect what happened with Neil or Cal, and was very anxious to find out what happened.
The Characters: there were so many new characters all thrown at you at once in the beginning of the book, it’s a little tough to keep up with. Vanessa seemed to have her head on reasonably straight, which i liked. Thea though, out of all the characters, was the one who had the best grip on reality (maybe that’s just because she and I are both crazy temperamental artists, though). Patience (who was not patient) seemed trivial and silly and a little ditzy, which was perfect for her. I don’t think i was supposed to particularly like her. at least, i hope that’s the case. (because i didn’t.) Libby seemed melodramatic and had an overrated view of sex. but her love for her cousins made her endearing.
The Writing: there was a lot of swearing in this book. a lot. which really doesn’t bother me that much, because when i’m reading i skip over it and don’t really register it, but it might bother other people. the writing style in general seemed very casual, and some things were over described—i really don’t care if the toilet that she peed into was stainless steel or porcelain, and i don’t really want to know every detail of a woman’s Christmas shopping.
Recommendation and rating: I gave this book a 2 out of five, if you look on my side bar you see that I wrote “you might enjoy it, but you're really not missing anything if you skip it.” I rated it that way because I personally didn’t connect with this book (probably because of my view of Christmas being centered around Christ, not pie.) and would have lived to see tomorrow if I hadn’t read it. however, if you look below, there is a list of other blogs on this tour, and other people may tell you that it was fantastic. I guess this one just wasn’t for me. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a light quick fun read, ages 16+
check out the rest of the blog tour:
*Rundpinne: http://www.rundpinne.blogspot.com
*Frugal Plus: http://frugalplus.com/
*The Life (And Lies) of an Inanimate Flying Object:
http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/
*Drey’s Library: http://dreyslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Wendi’s Book Corner: http://wendisbookcorner.blogspot.com/
*Opinionated? Me? : http://readingwatchingliving.blogspot.com/
*Me, My Book and the Couch:
http://memybookandthecouch.blogspot.com/
*Libby’s Library News: http://www.libslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Bookin’ With Bingo: http://bookinwithbingo.blogspot.com/
*Books, Movies, and Chinese Food:
http://books-movies-chinesefood.blogspot.com/
*Psychotic State: http://www.psychoticstate.blogspot.com/
*Readaholic: http://bridget3420.blogspot.com/
*That’s A Novel Idea: http://thatsanovelidea.blogspot.com
*All About {N}: http://www.bookwormygirl.blogspot.com/
*Starting Fresh: http://startingfresh-gaby317.blogspot.com/
*A Sea of Books: http://aseaofbooks.blogspot.com/
*Just Another New Blog: http://justanothernewblog.blogspot.com/
*Blog Business World: http://www.blogbusinessworld.blogspot.com
*My Friend Amy: http://www.myfriendamysblog.com
*Cheryl’s Book Nook: http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/
*One Person’s Journey Through A World of Books:
http://bookjourney.wordpress.com/
*I Read: http://sumanam.wordpress.com/
*So Many Books, So Little Time:
http://purplg8r-somanybooks.blogspot.com/
*Keep on Booking: http://keeponbooking.blogspot.com
*Reading at the Beach: http://ilratb.blogspot.com/
*Found Not Lost: http://jmomfinds.amoores.com/
*Brizmus Blogs Books: http://brizmusblogsbooks.blogspot.com/
*Book Reviews by Buuklvr81: http://www.buuklvr81.blogspot.com/
Thank you to Sarah Reidy from Pocket Books for providing me with my review copy.
win this copy of my book at haleymathiot.blogspot.com
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is the third and final installment of the iconoclastic Transformers franchise. By the law of diminishing returns, this should have fallen well below the par from the excellent first outing; well, has it? The answer is a definite no. First off, it's not as good as good as Transformers, lacking much of the comedy and puerile action, but it would be on par with the Revenge Of The Fallen, which is not up to much in many critic's opinions, which was overly smashy, confused and missed some of the pacing of the first.
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!