Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) in Movies
Apr 15, 2022
A fun ride - with heart
The first recommendation when watching EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is to not try to figure out what is going on in this movie during the first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes. This will drive you mad. Just sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
After that point, either it will click in your brain…or it won’t. If it does - great! If not…continue to sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
For…EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is a trippy head-trip of a film that is certainly unique - but it also has something going for it that all good films do - characters that you will care about in a story that will touch your heart.
Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (SWISS ARMY MAN), EVERYTHING…tells the tale of unhappily married couple Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond Wang (Ke Huy Quan), her father Gong Gong (the great James Hong) and their daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu). When interdimensional travel interrupts their mundane life, things get much, much more than mundane.
Yes, folks, you read that right INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL - and this is not a Marvel movie! Evelyn and family start jumping to parallel dimensions, experiencing everything, everywhere…all at once (hence, the name of the film).
This is a smart, unique and visually interesting film and credit for this must go to Wang and Scheinert. They have come up with something unusual. However, they don’t just do “unusual for unusual sake” they wrap this film up - and connect the dots - in a satisfying way in the end. Oh…and they also build in some incredibly impressive fight scenes along the way. To not hype them too much, but these are the best fight scenes that have been on film in quite some time - certainly the most interesting and unique since the JOHN WICK films.
The duo, smartly, enlisted the aid of the underappreciated - but very talented - Michelle Yeoh (CRAZY RICH ASIANS) as the protagonist of this piece. It is a wise choice for she must go from mousey housewife to kick-butt SuperHero (and everywhere in between) throughout the course of this film and her Martial Arts background comes in very, very handy. It is a bravura performance by Yeoh and it would be TERRIFIC if her name is called come awards season next year (yes, it is that good of a performance).
She is ably assisted by Hong (a veteran character actor with more than 450 credits to his name), Hsu (known for her role as Mei in THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL) and, especially Quan (the kid “Short Round” who assists the hero in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM) - it was good to see Quan back on the big screen.
The filmmakers also sprinkle some very strong character actors/actresses in the mix here. Both Jenny Slate (Mona-Lisa Saperstein in PARKS & REC) and Harry Shum, Jr. (GLEE, CRAZY RICH ASIANS) are fun in small roles as is the aforementioned James Hong as Gong Gong (the Grandfather).
But…the person who ALMOST steals this film from Ms. Yeoh is the incomparable Jamie Lee Curtis as the somewhat overweight and out of shape IRS Agent who plays a pivotal role in Evelyn’s life across the Dimensions. It is a fun role for Curtis who is not afraid to look physically bad. Again, I would LOVE IT if she got some love come awards time next year (she won’t, but maybe in some other parallel Universe she would).
Not for everyone - the multi-dimensional travel is going to give some folks a headache as they try to figure things out - but if you surrender yourself to the wildness that is going on, and embrace the spirit and the heart of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich film going experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars out of 10 (might move up to 9 on a rewatch) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
After that point, either it will click in your brain…or it won’t. If it does - great! If not…continue to sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
For…EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is a trippy head-trip of a film that is certainly unique - but it also has something going for it that all good films do - characters that you will care about in a story that will touch your heart.
Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (SWISS ARMY MAN), EVERYTHING…tells the tale of unhappily married couple Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond Wang (Ke Huy Quan), her father Gong Gong (the great James Hong) and their daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu). When interdimensional travel interrupts their mundane life, things get much, much more than mundane.
Yes, folks, you read that right INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL - and this is not a Marvel movie! Evelyn and family start jumping to parallel dimensions, experiencing everything, everywhere…all at once (hence, the name of the film).
This is a smart, unique and visually interesting film and credit for this must go to Wang and Scheinert. They have come up with something unusual. However, they don’t just do “unusual for unusual sake” they wrap this film up - and connect the dots - in a satisfying way in the end. Oh…and they also build in some incredibly impressive fight scenes along the way. To not hype them too much, but these are the best fight scenes that have been on film in quite some time - certainly the most interesting and unique since the JOHN WICK films.
The duo, smartly, enlisted the aid of the underappreciated - but very talented - Michelle Yeoh (CRAZY RICH ASIANS) as the protagonist of this piece. It is a wise choice for she must go from mousey housewife to kick-butt SuperHero (and everywhere in between) throughout the course of this film and her Martial Arts background comes in very, very handy. It is a bravura performance by Yeoh and it would be TERRIFIC if her name is called come awards season next year (yes, it is that good of a performance).
She is ably assisted by Hong (a veteran character actor with more than 450 credits to his name), Hsu (known for her role as Mei in THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL) and, especially Quan (the kid “Short Round” who assists the hero in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM) - it was good to see Quan back on the big screen.
The filmmakers also sprinkle some very strong character actors/actresses in the mix here. Both Jenny Slate (Mona-Lisa Saperstein in PARKS & REC) and Harry Shum, Jr. (GLEE, CRAZY RICH ASIANS) are fun in small roles as is the aforementioned James Hong as Gong Gong (the Grandfather).
But…the person who ALMOST steals this film from Ms. Yeoh is the incomparable Jamie Lee Curtis as the somewhat overweight and out of shape IRS Agent who plays a pivotal role in Evelyn’s life across the Dimensions. It is a fun role for Curtis who is not afraid to look physically bad. Again, I would LOVE IT if she got some love come awards time next year (she won’t, but maybe in some other parallel Universe she would).
Not for everyone - the multi-dimensional travel is going to give some folks a headache as they try to figure things out - but if you surrender yourself to the wildness that is going on, and embrace the spirit and the heart of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich film going experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars out of 10 (might move up to 9 on a rewatch) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Oct 9, 2017
Worryingly Controversial
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2017
Effective scares (1 more)
The young stars are brilliant
Surprising decent entry in The Conjuring universe
I'm a big fan of The Conjuring. It's easily one of my favourite scary movies in recent years, successfully hitting the right notes for me when it comes to big scares. I wasn't such a fan of the opening scenes featuring Annabelle though, and The Conjuring 2 didn't quite do it for me either, so when the spin off Annabelle movie came out in 2014, I gave it a miss. Even more so when it received some pretty average reviews. It's been on my Netflix watch-list for sometime now, and I'm sure I will watch it out of curiosity at some point, but for now I can take it or leave it. When I saw the trailer for Annabelle: Creation though, it definitely grabbed my interest. More so than the previous movie. The fact that it was set before the last one and could be watched without needing to have seen it either was also a big plus point as far as I was concerned.
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Desire of the Gods in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Taudry Statue Gets Woman Laid in Desire of the Gods
Contains spoilers, click to show
The last thing Paula needed was a blindfolded, glowing god in her bed, but that’s exactly what she got.
Still reeling from her fiance, Nick, breaking up with her, Paula is desperate to try anything to get him back. So when her neighbor, Mrs. Stephanopolos gives her a magic statue that will give Paula her heart’s desire, she’s skeptical but does the required ritual anyway.
A split second later, Apollo, the Greek god of the sun, is standing in her bedroom, ready to help Paula, even though he thinks Paula can do so much better than Nick.
Everything seems to be working out until Eros sneaks in and shoots one of his insta-love arrows at Apollo. Now the sun god needs to stay permanently blindfolded to avoid falling in love with the first woman he sees, especially when Paula is so not his type. Now Paula and Apollo are stuck with each other until Aphrodite can swoop in and reverse the spell. But with the two of them in such close proximity to each other, they might realize they’re each other’s types after all.
I definitely enjoyed this book. A lot of little details were explained, like the history of the statue and why she and Apollo can understand each other, despite them speaking different languages. And even though this book has a lot of my usual pet peeves, like insta-love, arrogance, and even lack of regard for personal boundaries, I still didn’t mind it. I think it’s easier to accept because Apollo is a god and things work differently for him. His love for Paula doesn’t have to be completely realistic because he’s not human.
However, the actual moment Apollo gets shot is incredibly anti-climactic.
Suddenly, the golden god flinched, and he slapped at the side of his neck as if stung by a mosquito.
“No – Oh No! Not again!” He shut his eyes tight.
“What’s the matter?” Paula stared at him.
“Eros,” groaned the god, keeping his eyes tight shut, “He’s fired on me.”
That’s it. It’s a significant event in the book but it’s as dramatic as a mosquito bite. You don’t even meet Eros in this book. But aside from that unsatisfying scene, this was an excellent story.
I really liked Paula as a character. She’s a bit of a smartass and despite being insecure with her looks, she’s not whiny or obsessive about it. Even though she needs to go along with Apollo’s absurdity to get her heart’s desire, she stays snarky instead of being resigned to taking his (unintentionally) hurtful comments about her appearance. The only thing I didn’t really like about her was her attachment to Nick. I get the fact that he was her fiance and she’s in love with him, but it got a little repetitive, even in this novella-length story. It was especially bad when Nick saw her with Apollo, jumped to conclusions, and called her a slut for moving on so quickly, even though he left her for another woman.
However, for the most part, Paula rocked.
Apollo is so absurd, he’s adorable. Normally, arrogance turns me off, but Apollo is so over the top, it’s impossible to take him seriously.
“Turn away from me, and try not to think of my wonderfully developed upper arms or what you moderns call my six pack”
It’s just so silly that it’s funny. And Apollo genuinely does care for Paula. He warned her away from Nick from the start, telling her she could do better. He also offered to strike Nick dead for her and was in general very protective of her (but not in a controlling way).
His lack of personal boundaries bothers me slightly. He has no concept of personal space and has no problem touching Paula randomly and without warning. When sleeping in her bed, he used her breasts for a pillow, and while sleeping he dry-humped her.
While this sort of behavior would usually bother me a lot, I don’t really mind it because it’s pretty clear he’s not doing it to exert power over her or because he thinks he owns her. He’s just pretty oblivious to how the world works. (The second book in this trilogy explains that the gods are all immature and careless like this because they do not have the ability to change and grow like humans do.)
However, I really liked him for the most part. He’s really sweet in general and has a great dynamic with Paula.
Still reeling from her fiance, Nick, breaking up with her, Paula is desperate to try anything to get him back. So when her neighbor, Mrs. Stephanopolos gives her a magic statue that will give Paula her heart’s desire, she’s skeptical but does the required ritual anyway.
A split second later, Apollo, the Greek god of the sun, is standing in her bedroom, ready to help Paula, even though he thinks Paula can do so much better than Nick.
Everything seems to be working out until Eros sneaks in and shoots one of his insta-love arrows at Apollo. Now the sun god needs to stay permanently blindfolded to avoid falling in love with the first woman he sees, especially when Paula is so not his type. Now Paula and Apollo are stuck with each other until Aphrodite can swoop in and reverse the spell. But with the two of them in such close proximity to each other, they might realize they’re each other’s types after all.
I definitely enjoyed this book. A lot of little details were explained, like the history of the statue and why she and Apollo can understand each other, despite them speaking different languages. And even though this book has a lot of my usual pet peeves, like insta-love, arrogance, and even lack of regard for personal boundaries, I still didn’t mind it. I think it’s easier to accept because Apollo is a god and things work differently for him. His love for Paula doesn’t have to be completely realistic because he’s not human.
However, the actual moment Apollo gets shot is incredibly anti-climactic.
Suddenly, the golden god flinched, and he slapped at the side of his neck as if stung by a mosquito.
“No – Oh No! Not again!” He shut his eyes tight.
“What’s the matter?” Paula stared at him.
“Eros,” groaned the god, keeping his eyes tight shut, “He’s fired on me.”
That’s it. It’s a significant event in the book but it’s as dramatic as a mosquito bite. You don’t even meet Eros in this book. But aside from that unsatisfying scene, this was an excellent story.
I really liked Paula as a character. She’s a bit of a smartass and despite being insecure with her looks, she’s not whiny or obsessive about it. Even though she needs to go along with Apollo’s absurdity to get her heart’s desire, she stays snarky instead of being resigned to taking his (unintentionally) hurtful comments about her appearance. The only thing I didn’t really like about her was her attachment to Nick. I get the fact that he was her fiance and she’s in love with him, but it got a little repetitive, even in this novella-length story. It was especially bad when Nick saw her with Apollo, jumped to conclusions, and called her a slut for moving on so quickly, even though he left her for another woman.
However, for the most part, Paula rocked.
Apollo is so absurd, he’s adorable. Normally, arrogance turns me off, but Apollo is so over the top, it’s impossible to take him seriously.
“Turn away from me, and try not to think of my wonderfully developed upper arms or what you moderns call my six pack”
It’s just so silly that it’s funny. And Apollo genuinely does care for Paula. He warned her away from Nick from the start, telling her she could do better. He also offered to strike Nick dead for her and was in general very protective of her (but not in a controlling way).
His lack of personal boundaries bothers me slightly. He has no concept of personal space and has no problem touching Paula randomly and without warning. When sleeping in her bed, he used her breasts for a pillow, and while sleeping he dry-humped her.
While this sort of behavior would usually bother me a lot, I don’t really mind it because it’s pretty clear he’s not doing it to exert power over her or because he thinks he owns her. He’s just pretty oblivious to how the world works. (The second book in this trilogy explains that the gods are all immature and careless like this because they do not have the ability to change and grow like humans do.)
However, I really liked him for the most part. He’s really sweet in general and has a great dynamic with Paula.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.