Search
Search results
Amanda (96 KP) rated Little Fires Everywhere in Books
Mar 21, 2019
I was so close to putting this book on my DNF list. The beginning of it was SO slow that I found myself spacing out and then remembering that I was listening to a book.
Obviously, I'm writing a review on it, so of course, I DID NOT put it on my DNF list. It took quite a few chapters (roughly five I think) to really get into the story and by then, I was completely hooked.
There are several stories going on.
The Richardsons rent out a house to a single mother, Mia Warren with her daughter Pearl. The Richardsons are friends with another family who are in the process of adopting a Chinese-American baby, but the process is paused when the mother comes forward wanting her daughter back. The husband, Mr. Richardson, is a lawyer representing the family who want to keep the baby and Mrs. Richardson basically tries to do some investigating of her own, including finding out things about her tenants past and what she has done to cause this drama for her best friends.
The theme of it all centers around a baby. Not just one baby, but that's the whole premise of the story.
One family wants to adopt the Chinese baby they renamed Mirabelle (I'm sorry, but I really don't like that name, or the reason WHY they changed it) and then the mother coming forward wanting her baby back. Now, the mother left her baby at a fire house cause she was not the right state to take care of her. If someone hadn't tipped her off as to where her baby was, then maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.
I struggled with not yelling at when the woman says the family is stealing her baby. No, they are not. They adopted her when she was left at a fire house. That is a thing that women in her state CAN do. If they cannot afford resources available (cost wise) they can leave their baby with a hospital or a fire house no questions asked. That also means that you give up parental rights. Granted, there should be some sort of grace period, but you cannot say this family stole your baby, because they didn't!
One teenager in the story finds out she's pregnant from her boyfriend and I just cannot fathom her snobby naivete attitude. She swoons over Mirabelle because she's so cute. I'll give you that, babies are cute. But then she starts to fantasize that her and her also teenage boyfriend could work it out and their parents would take care of the baby while at college. Yeah, okay! Reality does hit her hard though, but I won't say how, but it does and I almost feel bad for her, but not quite.
Then there's someone who agreed to be a surrogate and winds up stealing the baby before it was born. Now, technically, that woman did steal a baby. Granted, it's biologically yours, but she agreed, verbally and legally, to be this couple's surrogate. I'm not entirely sure I could do it, cause I really don't want to go through the whole pregnancy, but I can't speak for other women who go into the surrogacy and then start to regret it later. I don't know.
I'm now just babbling. Despite the slow beginning, I can definitely see why this book had as much hype as it did when it was published. It really gets you thinking about different perspectives of motherhood, biological or not. The story is told as if someone was indeed telling a story to a group of people. Almost like when someone is narrating a play and you're watching it as it unfolds before your eyes.
I do look forward to seeing about Celeste Ng's previous novels. This story may be sensitive to some people who have gone through any of these scenarios because I think some things that happen later, could very well get emotional. The story is great, but also keep that in mind if you are at all familiar with these kinds of stories.
Obviously, I'm writing a review on it, so of course, I DID NOT put it on my DNF list. It took quite a few chapters (roughly five I think) to really get into the story and by then, I was completely hooked.
There are several stories going on.
The Richardsons rent out a house to a single mother, Mia Warren with her daughter Pearl. The Richardsons are friends with another family who are in the process of adopting a Chinese-American baby, but the process is paused when the mother comes forward wanting her daughter back. The husband, Mr. Richardson, is a lawyer representing the family who want to keep the baby and Mrs. Richardson basically tries to do some investigating of her own, including finding out things about her tenants past and what she has done to cause this drama for her best friends.
The theme of it all centers around a baby. Not just one baby, but that's the whole premise of the story.
One family wants to adopt the Chinese baby they renamed Mirabelle (I'm sorry, but I really don't like that name, or the reason WHY they changed it) and then the mother coming forward wanting her baby back. Now, the mother left her baby at a fire house cause she was not the right state to take care of her. If someone hadn't tipped her off as to where her baby was, then maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.
I struggled with not yelling at when the woman says the family is stealing her baby. No, they are not. They adopted her when she was left at a fire house. That is a thing that women in her state CAN do. If they cannot afford resources available (cost wise) they can leave their baby with a hospital or a fire house no questions asked. That also means that you give up parental rights. Granted, there should be some sort of grace period, but you cannot say this family stole your baby, because they didn't!
One teenager in the story finds out she's pregnant from her boyfriend and I just cannot fathom her snobby naivete attitude. She swoons over Mirabelle because she's so cute. I'll give you that, babies are cute. But then she starts to fantasize that her and her also teenage boyfriend could work it out and their parents would take care of the baby while at college. Yeah, okay! Reality does hit her hard though, but I won't say how, but it does and I almost feel bad for her, but not quite.
Then there's someone who agreed to be a surrogate and winds up stealing the baby before it was born. Now, technically, that woman did steal a baby. Granted, it's biologically yours, but she agreed, verbally and legally, to be this couple's surrogate. I'm not entirely sure I could do it, cause I really don't want to go through the whole pregnancy, but I can't speak for other women who go into the surrogacy and then start to regret it later. I don't know.
I'm now just babbling. Despite the slow beginning, I can definitely see why this book had as much hype as it did when it was published. It really gets you thinking about different perspectives of motherhood, biological or not. The story is told as if someone was indeed telling a story to a group of people. Almost like when someone is narrating a play and you're watching it as it unfolds before your eyes.
I do look forward to seeing about Celeste Ng's previous novels. This story may be sensitive to some people who have gone through any of these scenarios because I think some things that happen later, could very well get emotional. The story is great, but also keep that in mind if you are at all familiar with these kinds of stories.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 9, 2019
I'm always wary heading into comedies, and the majority of my reviews for the genre usually open with some intro along those lines. On the whole I'm usually disappointed with what I see, particularly as the trailers tend to show literally every single laugh out loud moment from the film, leaving very little else to enjoy. Mrs B joined me for this particular cinema trip, and we have a bit of a track record recently for picking movies to go and see together which then turn out to be a disappointment, so I was doubly worried. Coincidentally, as we pulled into the cinema car park, an ad for Long Shot played on the radio. It's outrageously funny! Absolutely hilarious! The funniest movie in years! Etc etc... All the usual claims, and mighty big words to live up to.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Good Thing by Leon Bridges in Music
Jun 7, 2019
Leon Bridges is a talented R&B/soul singer outta Fort Worth, Texas. Not too long ago, he released his second studio album, entitled, “Good Thing”.
BET AIN’T WORTH THE HAND
The artist sings a beautiful ballad about leaving a rocky relationship. He doesn’t want to leave because he still sees hope in making it work.
The Natalie Rae-directed video begins with Bridges walking the street. He’s hurt. The following scenes show him relating to other people going through the same emotional pain he’s experiencing.
The artist knows that’s a risky move staying in a broken relationship. Also, he looks at the cards he’s dealt with and realizes his best is to move on.
BAD BAD NEWS
The artist switches speed and takes listeners on a funky ride. It’s disco time and he celebrates on the dancefloor. Also, being there isn’t easy. So, he has to fight his way through the crowd to make it to the front.
The Natalie Rae-directed video begins with a voluptuous woman walking inside a train station. She hears someone whistling so she heads in that direction, following the whistler.
Somehow, Bridges’ music overtakes her soul and she begins to follow its funky rhythm. In the end, it leads her to the guy who was whistling in the beginning.
The artist sings a triumphant song. He questions people trying to hold him in the back. But that’s not where he belongs. So, he moves up front and kills them with style and grace.
SHY
The artist addresses a shy woman that he’s in love with. Also, he assures her that it doesn’t matter if she’s shy. He doesn’t care about her shyness because he’s into her.
BEYOND
Bridges is deep in love with the shy woman. Everything is moving fast. Also, he wants to slow things down but he can’t. Because of that, he’s scared to death that she might be the one.
FORGIVE YOU
The artist sings the blues. He admits he played the fool in the relationship where his girl took advantage of his kindness. But he forgives her even though it’s hard to. Also, his friends warned him not to be so gullible.
LIONS
The aftermath of experiencing bad love has Bridges feeling like a thirsty lion. But through his trials and tribulations, he remains true to himself. Also, he refuses to conform to who the woman wants him to be.
IF IT FEELS GOOD (THEN IT MUST BE)
The artist removes the bad love aura and freshens the air with truth and honesty. Also, he perfumes the dancefloor with a splash of funkiness and rhythm and blues.
He wants the mysterious lady bad. So, he tells her to let her guards down and enjoy herself. He doesn’t want her to act so seriously.
YOU DON’T KNOW
The artist continues dancing in the name of love. He’s head over heels for the woman in his life and he wants the world to know that. Also, he wants her to stop thinking because their loving might not go down if she continues to do so.
MRS.
The artist addresses his love and hate relationship with his girl. When they’re good they’re good, but when they’re bad they’re really bad. Also, whenever she shows him affection, he remembers that she still loves him.
GEORGIA TO TEXAS
The artist sings about his mother carrying him in her womb, while his father drove them from Atlanta to Texas. But years later, he admits that adapting to his surrounding wasn’t easy.
Apparently, the 504 black girl is Bridges’ mother, Lisa Sawyer. The number 504 is the area code where she’s from in New Orleans, Lousiana.
CONCLUSION
Leon Bridges’ “Good Thing” is a classic album perfumed with soul ballads, spicy topics, and danceable tunes. Its soulful sound is the perfect soundtrack for those who have loved and lost, and those who are in love for the very first time. It’s romantic, celebratory, with lush experiences. Also, it takes listeners on an emotional journey through the hills and valleys where love dwells.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/leon-bridges-good-thing/
BET AIN’T WORTH THE HAND
The artist sings a beautiful ballad about leaving a rocky relationship. He doesn’t want to leave because he still sees hope in making it work.
The Natalie Rae-directed video begins with Bridges walking the street. He’s hurt. The following scenes show him relating to other people going through the same emotional pain he’s experiencing.
The artist knows that’s a risky move staying in a broken relationship. Also, he looks at the cards he’s dealt with and realizes his best is to move on.
BAD BAD NEWS
The artist switches speed and takes listeners on a funky ride. It’s disco time and he celebrates on the dancefloor. Also, being there isn’t easy. So, he has to fight his way through the crowd to make it to the front.
The Natalie Rae-directed video begins with a voluptuous woman walking inside a train station. She hears someone whistling so she heads in that direction, following the whistler.
Somehow, Bridges’ music overtakes her soul and she begins to follow its funky rhythm. In the end, it leads her to the guy who was whistling in the beginning.
The artist sings a triumphant song. He questions people trying to hold him in the back. But that’s not where he belongs. So, he moves up front and kills them with style and grace.
SHY
The artist addresses a shy woman that he’s in love with. Also, he assures her that it doesn’t matter if she’s shy. He doesn’t care about her shyness because he’s into her.
BEYOND
Bridges is deep in love with the shy woman. Everything is moving fast. Also, he wants to slow things down but he can’t. Because of that, he’s scared to death that she might be the one.
FORGIVE YOU
The artist sings the blues. He admits he played the fool in the relationship where his girl took advantage of his kindness. But he forgives her even though it’s hard to. Also, his friends warned him not to be so gullible.
LIONS
The aftermath of experiencing bad love has Bridges feeling like a thirsty lion. But through his trials and tribulations, he remains true to himself. Also, he refuses to conform to who the woman wants him to be.
IF IT FEELS GOOD (THEN IT MUST BE)
The artist removes the bad love aura and freshens the air with truth and honesty. Also, he perfumes the dancefloor with a splash of funkiness and rhythm and blues.
He wants the mysterious lady bad. So, he tells her to let her guards down and enjoy herself. He doesn’t want her to act so seriously.
YOU DON’T KNOW
The artist continues dancing in the name of love. He’s head over heels for the woman in his life and he wants the world to know that. Also, he wants her to stop thinking because their loving might not go down if she continues to do so.
MRS.
The artist addresses his love and hate relationship with his girl. When they’re good they’re good, but when they’re bad they’re really bad. Also, whenever she shows him affection, he remembers that she still loves him.
GEORGIA TO TEXAS
The artist sings about his mother carrying him in her womb, while his father drove them from Atlanta to Texas. But years later, he admits that adapting to his surrounding wasn’t easy.
Apparently, the 504 black girl is Bridges’ mother, Lisa Sawyer. The number 504 is the area code where she’s from in New Orleans, Lousiana.
CONCLUSION
Leon Bridges’ “Good Thing” is a classic album perfumed with soul ballads, spicy topics, and danceable tunes. Its soulful sound is the perfect soundtrack for those who have loved and lost, and those who are in love for the very first time. It’s romantic, celebratory, with lush experiences. Also, it takes listeners on an emotional journey through the hills and valleys where love dwells.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/leon-bridges-good-thing/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Dark Tales in Books
Mar 15, 2018
This is a really generous collection of short stories. There are 17 in this book in total, with the longest being only 24 pages (which feels like loads after reading 10 page stories practically all the way through)!
<b><i>The Possibility of Evil - 3 stars</i></b>
I wasn’t all that interested in this short until right at the very end. The last line was fantastically horrible.
<b><i>Louisa, Please Come Home - 3 stars</i></b>
Hm. This one was good but not great. It was sad, more than anything.
<b><i>Paranoia - 5 stars</i></b>
This story was great! It gripped me right from the start and had my heart pounding as Mr Beresford was rushing to get home and away from “light hat”. Fantastically creepy ending too.
<b><i>The Honeymoon of Mrs Smith - 2 stars</i></b>
I liked the prose and everything but I didn’t get it? Probably me just being stupid but… yeah.
<b><i>The Story We Used to Tell - 3 stars</i></b>
There was certainly an eeriness about this story but I didn’t like how it took on a sort of paranormal turn, when the rest of the stories have been based on human nature.
<b><i>The Sorcerer's Apprentice - 2 stars </i></b>
This one was just really dull in comparison to the other ones.
<b><i>Jack the Ripper - 4 stars </i></b>
I liked this one because it was creepy and kind of left you to your own imagination. I love any kind of story that focuses on the Ripper because everyone makes him their own.
<b><i>The Beautiful Stranger - 3 stars </i></b>
If you can’t already tell from my previous mini reviews, I prefer the creepy stories, and this wasn’t that, but it was still an interesting story, just not my favourite.
<b><i>All She Said Was Yes - 4 stars</i></b>
I liked this story because it was a little bit different and the ending has you going “No! No! Don’t do it!”. I like it when a book conjures up that emotion from you.
<b><i>What a Thought - 4 stars</i></b>
Hasn’t just about everyone had a murderous thoughts before? This was a good story because I could relate to some of it. (That all sounds so bad, don’t worry, I’m not planning on ever killing anyone).
<b><i>The Bus - 4 stars</i></b>
I really liked this one! It got super creepy when she arrived at the old house and I loved the twist ending!
<b><i>Family Treasures - 3 stars</i></b>
I enjoyed this one all the way up to then end. Girls are so terribly bitchy, Jackson got the atmosphere in the house perfectly right!
<b><i>A Visit - 3 stars</i></b>
I liked how the mystery built in this story but I didn’t particularly like how to story ended. I also felt that the timings were a little all over the place, which confused me at some parts.
<b><i>The Good Wife - 3 stars</i></b>
I didn’t mind this story but it was very predictable. I was hoping the end wouldn’t be what I was expecting it to be, but alas.
<b><i>The Man in the Woods - 4 stars</i></b>
This story had a bit of a fairy tale feel to it, which made it a lot more enjoyable for me.
<b><i>Home - 4 stars</i></b>
OK, so I know I said earlier in this review that I didn’t like one of the stories taking on a paranormal element, but I liked it in this one! I kind of reminded me of Beetlejuice because of the bridge lol.
<b><i>The Summer People - 4 stars</i></b>
Eep, this one was creepy! I liked the whole creepy local community vibe it had to it and how the Allison’s were no longer welcome… Very good end to this collection of shorts.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<b><i>The Possibility of Evil - 3 stars</i></b>
I wasn’t all that interested in this short until right at the very end. The last line was fantastically horrible.
<b><i>Louisa, Please Come Home - 3 stars</i></b>
Hm. This one was good but not great. It was sad, more than anything.
<b><i>Paranoia - 5 stars</i></b>
This story was great! It gripped me right from the start and had my heart pounding as Mr Beresford was rushing to get home and away from “light hat”. Fantastically creepy ending too.
<b><i>The Honeymoon of Mrs Smith - 2 stars</i></b>
I liked the prose and everything but I didn’t get it? Probably me just being stupid but… yeah.
<b><i>The Story We Used to Tell - 3 stars</i></b>
There was certainly an eeriness about this story but I didn’t like how it took on a sort of paranormal turn, when the rest of the stories have been based on human nature.
<b><i>The Sorcerer's Apprentice - 2 stars </i></b>
This one was just really dull in comparison to the other ones.
<b><i>Jack the Ripper - 4 stars </i></b>
I liked this one because it was creepy and kind of left you to your own imagination. I love any kind of story that focuses on the Ripper because everyone makes him their own.
<b><i>The Beautiful Stranger - 3 stars </i></b>
If you can’t already tell from my previous mini reviews, I prefer the creepy stories, and this wasn’t that, but it was still an interesting story, just not my favourite.
<b><i>All She Said Was Yes - 4 stars</i></b>
I liked this story because it was a little bit different and the ending has you going “No! No! Don’t do it!”. I like it when a book conjures up that emotion from you.
<b><i>What a Thought - 4 stars</i></b>
Hasn’t just about everyone had a murderous thoughts before? This was a good story because I could relate to some of it. (That all sounds so bad, don’t worry, I’m not planning on ever killing anyone).
<b><i>The Bus - 4 stars</i></b>
I really liked this one! It got super creepy when she arrived at the old house and I loved the twist ending!
<b><i>Family Treasures - 3 stars</i></b>
I enjoyed this one all the way up to then end. Girls are so terribly bitchy, Jackson got the atmosphere in the house perfectly right!
<b><i>A Visit - 3 stars</i></b>
I liked how the mystery built in this story but I didn’t particularly like how to story ended. I also felt that the timings were a little all over the place, which confused me at some parts.
<b><i>The Good Wife - 3 stars</i></b>
I didn’t mind this story but it was very predictable. I was hoping the end wouldn’t be what I was expecting it to be, but alas.
<b><i>The Man in the Woods - 4 stars</i></b>
This story had a bit of a fairy tale feel to it, which made it a lot more enjoyable for me.
<b><i>Home - 4 stars</i></b>
OK, so I know I said earlier in this review that I didn’t like one of the stories taking on a paranormal element, but I liked it in this one! I kind of reminded me of Beetlejuice because of the bridge lol.
<b><i>The Summer People - 4 stars</i></b>
Eep, this one was creepy! I liked the whole creepy local community vibe it had to it and how the Allison’s were no longer welcome… Very good end to this collection of shorts.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Darren (1599 KP) rated 8MM (1999) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 8MM starts as we meet private investigator Tom Welles (Cage) who is one of the most respected in the business. His latest job finds him working got Daniel Longdale (Heald) attorney to Mrs Christian (Carter) who finds an unusual film in her late husband safe, one that seems like a snuff film. Tom is hired to investigate whether it is a real tape or just clever piece of art.
Tom’s investigation which he disguises as a missing persons case leads him to Mary Ann Mathews (Powell) who has been missing for years. Learning about her disappearance Tom finds himself delving into the pornographic underworld of Hollywood. Tom recruits Max California (Phoenix) an employee from an adult store to take him into the underworld.
The deeper Tom gets into the world the more leads that get opened for him to investigate as he starts with producer Eddie Poole (Gandolfini) before finding himself in deeper than he could ever have imagined.
8MM takes us into a world we haven’t entered before as we watch how the underworld of porn has turned into the world of snuff. While the investigation is twisted filled and very much what you would expect it to be, it is the idea of the sexual drive from the villains that adds a disturbing factor to it all. We see this with how Tom reacts to everything in the film. I will say this contains a lot of disturbing material that can’t be easily watched but this does help show how far the world can go into darkness.
Actor Review
Nicolas Cage: Tom Welles is a well-respected private investigator, his latest job brings him into the seedy underworld of the pornographic as he looks for a missing person that could have been a victim of a snuff film. He must use all his skills to get into the world where he learns the shocking truth. Nicolas is good in this role where we get to see him in a dark situation compared to action star he has become.tom
Joaquin Phoenix: Max California works in an adult story, he has connections to the pornographic underworld as he teams up with Tom to uncover the truth about the snuff world. Joaquin is good in this role showing he is willing to take on the stranger roles.mike
James Gandolfini: Eddie Poole is an adult film producer that Tom starts investigating, he is as seedy as them come but does know something about the missing girl. James is good in the supporting role but we just don’t see enough of his character.
Peter Stormare: Dino Velvet is the pornographic producer that deals with all over the extreme porn, he is above Eddie in the chain that could well be the man behind the film Tom is investigating. Peter is solid in this role you could easily see him in but we don’t see enough of him.
Support Cast: 8MM has a supporting cast that all help the final outcome of the film, we have people who have been effected in their own way.
Director Review: Joel Schumacher – Joel gives us an intense mystery thriller that pushes the boundaries of right and wrong.
Crime: 8MM takes us into the underworld of the porn industry where the snuff movies do get made by the people involved.
Mystery: 8MM does keep us wondering what is happening and who will be involved.
Thriller: 8MM manages to keep us on the edge throughout the film.
Settings: 8MM takes us to all the underworld areas to show how the perverts of the world can find what they want.
Special Effects: 8MM has good effects to show the kills being involved.
Suggestion: 8MM is one to try, I do think it will be difficult to watch for certain people. (Try It)
Best Part: Eddie has to pay.
Worst Part: Hard to watch.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Sadly, Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 3 Minutes
Tagline: You are never prepared for the truth
Trivia: The enema porno film seen at the porn swap meet is a genuine S&M film that was heavily edited for inclusion in the main movie.
Overall: Difficult to watch but good watch throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/11/franchise-weekend-8mm-1999/
Tom’s investigation which he disguises as a missing persons case leads him to Mary Ann Mathews (Powell) who has been missing for years. Learning about her disappearance Tom finds himself delving into the pornographic underworld of Hollywood. Tom recruits Max California (Phoenix) an employee from an adult store to take him into the underworld.
The deeper Tom gets into the world the more leads that get opened for him to investigate as he starts with producer Eddie Poole (Gandolfini) before finding himself in deeper than he could ever have imagined.
8MM takes us into a world we haven’t entered before as we watch how the underworld of porn has turned into the world of snuff. While the investigation is twisted filled and very much what you would expect it to be, it is the idea of the sexual drive from the villains that adds a disturbing factor to it all. We see this with how Tom reacts to everything in the film. I will say this contains a lot of disturbing material that can’t be easily watched but this does help show how far the world can go into darkness.
Actor Review
Nicolas Cage: Tom Welles is a well-respected private investigator, his latest job brings him into the seedy underworld of the pornographic as he looks for a missing person that could have been a victim of a snuff film. He must use all his skills to get into the world where he learns the shocking truth. Nicolas is good in this role where we get to see him in a dark situation compared to action star he has become.tom
Joaquin Phoenix: Max California works in an adult story, he has connections to the pornographic underworld as he teams up with Tom to uncover the truth about the snuff world. Joaquin is good in this role showing he is willing to take on the stranger roles.mike
James Gandolfini: Eddie Poole is an adult film producer that Tom starts investigating, he is as seedy as them come but does know something about the missing girl. James is good in the supporting role but we just don’t see enough of his character.
Peter Stormare: Dino Velvet is the pornographic producer that deals with all over the extreme porn, he is above Eddie in the chain that could well be the man behind the film Tom is investigating. Peter is solid in this role you could easily see him in but we don’t see enough of him.
Support Cast: 8MM has a supporting cast that all help the final outcome of the film, we have people who have been effected in their own way.
Director Review: Joel Schumacher – Joel gives us an intense mystery thriller that pushes the boundaries of right and wrong.
Crime: 8MM takes us into the underworld of the porn industry where the snuff movies do get made by the people involved.
Mystery: 8MM does keep us wondering what is happening and who will be involved.
Thriller: 8MM manages to keep us on the edge throughout the film.
Settings: 8MM takes us to all the underworld areas to show how the perverts of the world can find what they want.
Special Effects: 8MM has good effects to show the kills being involved.
Suggestion: 8MM is one to try, I do think it will be difficult to watch for certain people. (Try It)
Best Part: Eddie has to pay.
Worst Part: Hard to watch.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Sadly, Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 3 Minutes
Tagline: You are never prepared for the truth
Trivia: The enema porno film seen at the porn swap meet is a genuine S&M film that was heavily edited for inclusion in the main movie.
Overall: Difficult to watch but good watch throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/11/franchise-weekend-8mm-1999/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Nov 26, 2019
Verdict: Charming and Entertaining
Story: Paddington 2 starts as Paddington is a welcome member of the Brown family, the neighbours are always willing to accept his help and now Paddington sees a gift for his Aunt Lucy in Mr Gruber (Broadbent) antique shop and decides to get a job to pay for it.
Just about to buy the present, Paddington catches a thief breaking into the store and goes in chase, only to find himself captured and thrown in prison. Paddington soon makes friends with the prisoners including the feared Knuckles (Gleeson), while the Brown family Henry (Bonneville) and Mary (Hawkins) try to free Paddington, learning that the once famous actor Phoenix Buchanan (Grant) is behind the crime.
Thoughts on Paddington 2
Characters – Paddington is the kind-hearted marmalade loving bear living in London, he has made countless friends both human and animal, he wants to get a present for his Aunt which sees him trying to get a job. He does try to do the right thing by helping with a robbery only to be found guilty. Paddington always the people bear makes friends, while believing that everybody has good about them. Henry, Mary Brown and Mrs Bird treat Paddington like their third child and will do everything to help get him out of prison. Phoenix Buchanan is the once famous actor that has moved in next door to the Browns, he is very eccentric and trying to rebuild his fortune which sees him stealing the book and learning about the clues in the book, always trying to stay ahead of the people trying to capture him, using his different costumes from his career. Knuckles McGinty is the prison chef, he is feared by the other inmates, but Paddington breaks down those barriers showing him to be a good man inside, one that could bring the prisoners together.
Performances – When we go into the performances, the original cast are all wonderfully, but it is the addition members of the cast that truly shine, Hugh Grant practically steals every scene, while Brendan Gleeson proves that he can be the funniest man on camera, these two are outstanding in every single scene they are in.
Story – The story here follows Paddington’s next adventure as he tries to give his Aunt a present of seeing London only for him to get framed and thrown in prison, while the Brown family try to figure out who really committed the crime. This is a coming together story, it shows how somebody’s good nature can change everything in life and without them around you will notice the change in life. The idea that Paddington is facing off against an evil washed up actor is entertaining too, though it would have been nice to see more of the treasure hunt side of the story. While most of the story is largely predictable it does have a huge heart behind it and shows that good people will rub off on others to show kindness can be a change to life for the better.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of the film seems to be focused more on the villains adventure, more than seeing what Paddington must get up to, the comedy comes from seeing just what Paddington gets himself into and the trouble he causes with his innocent nature.
Settings – We keep London as the main backdrop for the film, while we do have Paddington in a prison and the major landmarks being used as clues to a treasure, most places are locations we are expecting to see in any London based movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant putting Paddington in every scene like he is really there, it never looks out of place which shows just how far this technology has come.
Scene of the Movie – Lets make marmalade.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Surely, Mr Gruber would be the one who decides whether to press charges against Paddington?
Final Thoughts – This is a entertaining, big hearted movie that could be enjoyed by the whole family and would leave a smile on everybody’s face.
Overall: Big Heart Movie.
Story: Paddington 2 starts as Paddington is a welcome member of the Brown family, the neighbours are always willing to accept his help and now Paddington sees a gift for his Aunt Lucy in Mr Gruber (Broadbent) antique shop and decides to get a job to pay for it.
Just about to buy the present, Paddington catches a thief breaking into the store and goes in chase, only to find himself captured and thrown in prison. Paddington soon makes friends with the prisoners including the feared Knuckles (Gleeson), while the Brown family Henry (Bonneville) and Mary (Hawkins) try to free Paddington, learning that the once famous actor Phoenix Buchanan (Grant) is behind the crime.
Thoughts on Paddington 2
Characters – Paddington is the kind-hearted marmalade loving bear living in London, he has made countless friends both human and animal, he wants to get a present for his Aunt which sees him trying to get a job. He does try to do the right thing by helping with a robbery only to be found guilty. Paddington always the people bear makes friends, while believing that everybody has good about them. Henry, Mary Brown and Mrs Bird treat Paddington like their third child and will do everything to help get him out of prison. Phoenix Buchanan is the once famous actor that has moved in next door to the Browns, he is very eccentric and trying to rebuild his fortune which sees him stealing the book and learning about the clues in the book, always trying to stay ahead of the people trying to capture him, using his different costumes from his career. Knuckles McGinty is the prison chef, he is feared by the other inmates, but Paddington breaks down those barriers showing him to be a good man inside, one that could bring the prisoners together.
Performances – When we go into the performances, the original cast are all wonderfully, but it is the addition members of the cast that truly shine, Hugh Grant practically steals every scene, while Brendan Gleeson proves that he can be the funniest man on camera, these two are outstanding in every single scene they are in.
Story – The story here follows Paddington’s next adventure as he tries to give his Aunt a present of seeing London only for him to get framed and thrown in prison, while the Brown family try to figure out who really committed the crime. This is a coming together story, it shows how somebody’s good nature can change everything in life and without them around you will notice the change in life. The idea that Paddington is facing off against an evil washed up actor is entertaining too, though it would have been nice to see more of the treasure hunt side of the story. While most of the story is largely predictable it does have a huge heart behind it and shows that good people will rub off on others to show kindness can be a change to life for the better.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of the film seems to be focused more on the villains adventure, more than seeing what Paddington must get up to, the comedy comes from seeing just what Paddington gets himself into and the trouble he causes with his innocent nature.
Settings – We keep London as the main backdrop for the film, while we do have Paddington in a prison and the major landmarks being used as clues to a treasure, most places are locations we are expecting to see in any London based movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant putting Paddington in every scene like he is really there, it never looks out of place which shows just how far this technology has come.
Scene of the Movie – Lets make marmalade.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Surely, Mr Gruber would be the one who decides whether to press charges against Paddington?
Final Thoughts – This is a entertaining, big hearted movie that could be enjoyed by the whole family and would leave a smile on everybody’s face.
Overall: Big Heart Movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
You Can't Murder a Vampire
Fright Night- is a excellent vampire movie. Directed by Tom Holland. It has comedy, horror, lots of gory and Peter Vincent.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
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.)
