Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
In May 1940, as Germany advanced into France, Allied troops found themselves surrounded at the town of Dunkirk with little time to escape. In the distance, the Germans sought to capture or kill each of the nearly 400,000 men. French and British soldiers began the slow process to evacuate using every naval or civilian ship available. Dunkirk examines the heroism involved by everyone on the land, sea, and air in their attempt to get their countrymen home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Thousand Pieces of You (Firebird, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<i>A Thousand Pieces of You</i> was an absolute pain in the butt to listen to – that's probably an exaggeration.
The book is one of those novels that needs quite a bit of scientific background for you to fully grasp the entire meaning behind it. There is just <i>so</i> much physics and scientific varbage just purely explaining the concept parallel universes, dimension traveling, and the like throughout the first fifth of the book that I, a high school girl who only finished Chemistry, can only get a teeny grasp on because I was bored enough to do some research on the existence of parallel universes years ago. Still, I was as absolutely confused as a newborn baby.
But back then, I was in middle school. My curiosity might have been insatiable (it still is... in a way) and it annoyed the noodles out of my parents. Well, my mother was annoyed and wondered if I got switched at birth. Congrats, mom. You got a grammar Nazi and not a walking calculator. How does it feel to have someone younger than you correcting your grammar?
Still, getting bombarded with physics varbage isn't exactly my thing – my mind went from, "Whoa, this is cool!" to "Wait... why do I think this is cool again?" to "What is this? Physics class? I'M NOT DONE WITH CHEMISTRY YET." to "I don't understand. I'm reading this, absorbing this, digesting this, but I can't understand or comprehend or grasp this fully."
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/06/TookMySkull.gif"; width="320" height="180" border="0" /></div>
The whole varbage thing might have been helpful with the world building and better understanding of how the whole dimension traveling worked – if you know enough science. No offense, but I swear, tPhone is the most ridiculous creation ever – a complete carbon copy of the iPhone with a different letter replacing the "i." The Triad here is quite literally the Apple of this book – I'm not too impressed.
There is also A LOT of flashbacks to Marguerite's life – helpful in learning about Marguerite, her family, Theo, Paul, and all the other characters, but only a few were actually helpful later on in the story. The whole physics varbage and the flashbacks felt like a conversation I would be having with a long time friend visiting after many years, or a potential class reunion ten years after I graduate and Lupe talks about this hair salon she opened in Mexico and Rundus talks about a gruesomely bloody game he programmed recently while finally keeping his fingers to himself unless he wants his girlfriend/fiancée/wife to go after my head in envy.
<i>A Thousand Pieces of You</i> was just that – a story told many years after it happened and the characters look back and reflect on themselves, possibly laughing at how stupid they might have acted. At the romantic notions they each had of each other – Marguerite thinking about never having a chance with Paul or Theo, Theo thinking about maybe he <i>does</i> have a chance with Marguerite, and Paul thinking he has no chance with Marguerite whatsoever. At how reckless Marguerite was with her thinking – jumping the gun and going after Paul right from the start, because one of the first things I hear is, "Kill Paul Markov." Whoa, gruesome much?
Then I get thrust into a flurry of confusion where Marguerite's emotions are on high tide and a dumpster of information is quite literally dumped upon my ears from the very next chapter about how this whole dimension travel works here, among other things.
While I enjoyed the whole "story around a fire" vibe, I feel like I would have enjoyed this so much better and grasped this so much more fully if I took a physics class before reading this.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/audiobook-review-a-thousand-pieces-of-you-by-claudia-gray/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
The book is one of those novels that needs quite a bit of scientific background for you to fully grasp the entire meaning behind it. There is just <i>so</i> much physics and scientific varbage just purely explaining the concept parallel universes, dimension traveling, and the like throughout the first fifth of the book that I, a high school girl who only finished Chemistry, can only get a teeny grasp on because I was bored enough to do some research on the existence of parallel universes years ago. Still, I was as absolutely confused as a newborn baby.
But back then, I was in middle school. My curiosity might have been insatiable (it still is... in a way) and it annoyed the noodles out of my parents. Well, my mother was annoyed and wondered if I got switched at birth. Congrats, mom. You got a grammar Nazi and not a walking calculator. How does it feel to have someone younger than you correcting your grammar?
Still, getting bombarded with physics varbage isn't exactly my thing – my mind went from, "Whoa, this is cool!" to "Wait... why do I think this is cool again?" to "What is this? Physics class? I'M NOT DONE WITH CHEMISTRY YET." to "I don't understand. I'm reading this, absorbing this, digesting this, but I can't understand or comprehend or grasp this fully."
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/06/TookMySkull.gif"; width="320" height="180" border="0" /></div>
The whole varbage thing might have been helpful with the world building and better understanding of how the whole dimension traveling worked – if you know enough science. No offense, but I swear, tPhone is the most ridiculous creation ever – a complete carbon copy of the iPhone with a different letter replacing the "i." The Triad here is quite literally the Apple of this book – I'm not too impressed.
There is also A LOT of flashbacks to Marguerite's life – helpful in learning about Marguerite, her family, Theo, Paul, and all the other characters, but only a few were actually helpful later on in the story. The whole physics varbage and the flashbacks felt like a conversation I would be having with a long time friend visiting after many years, or a potential class reunion ten years after I graduate and Lupe talks about this hair salon she opened in Mexico and Rundus talks about a gruesomely bloody game he programmed recently while finally keeping his fingers to himself unless he wants his girlfriend/fiancée/wife to go after my head in envy.
<i>A Thousand Pieces of You</i> was just that – a story told many years after it happened and the characters look back and reflect on themselves, possibly laughing at how stupid they might have acted. At the romantic notions they each had of each other – Marguerite thinking about never having a chance with Paul or Theo, Theo thinking about maybe he <i>does</i> have a chance with Marguerite, and Paul thinking he has no chance with Marguerite whatsoever. At how reckless Marguerite was with her thinking – jumping the gun and going after Paul right from the start, because one of the first things I hear is, "Kill Paul Markov." Whoa, gruesome much?
Then I get thrust into a flurry of confusion where Marguerite's emotions are on high tide and a dumpster of information is quite literally dumped upon my ears from the very next chapter about how this whole dimension travel works here, among other things.
While I enjoyed the whole "story around a fire" vibe, I feel like I would have enjoyed this so much better and grasped this so much more fully if I took a physics class before reading this.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/audiobook-review-a-thousand-pieces-of-you-by-claudia-gray/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Nightingale in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I am speechless. I finished the book 15 minutes ago, but I am still staring in the wall and tears are falling down my cheeks. It’s been a while since I’ve been that touched by a book. This story and this two sisters turn upside down the idea of the women’s role in WWII.
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Odd Child Out (Jim Clemo #2) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
The second book in [a:Gilly Macmillan|8183303|Gilly Macmillan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1490347732p2/8183303.jpg]'s excellent DI Jim Clemo series finds Jim back in similar circumstances from the first--working against time to save a child. Jim has returned from leave after the Ben Finch case, and he's ready to redeem himself in the eyes DCI Fraser and his peers. He's assigned what looks to be a terrible accident: best pals Noah Sadler and Abdi Mahad are out late one evening when teenage Noah falls into a local canal, rendering him unconscious. Abdi refuses to speak about what happened, leaving the families (and police) to ponder what really occurred that evening. Complicating matters is the fact that Noah is already ill from cancer; plus Noah is British, while Abdi and his family are Somalian refugees, so Jim fears how this case will be presented in the press. By most accounts, Noah and Abdi are best friends, so what truly went down night?
<i>This is another gorgeous gem of a novel by Macmillan</i>, who offers yet one more beautifully-written mystery combined with lovely, perfectly drawn characters. This book touched me in so many ways, and <i>I just cannot keep raving enough about how well this author writes, or how she so excellently embodies her characters</i>. Again, this is no straightforward mystery, or simple fiction, but a wonderful combination of the two.
For me, this book really hit from home the beginning, as Jim mentions how an anti-immigration march by a neo-Nazi group has rocked Bristol, wrecking havoc on the police force, as well as emotions in the area. It's clear that racial tensions are high. As someone who was born in Charlottesville, VA, and lived in the suburbs of the area for the last nearly ten years, I felt this in my heart all too well. The backdrop of race stretches across the fabric of Macmillan's entire novel, and it's quite well done, in my opinion.
On one end, we have the Sadler family--well-off and British: Noah attends a posh private school, Fiona manages Noah and Noah's illness, and Ed is a photographer--often of refugees. In fact, we learn that he's even photographed the very camp where Abdi's parents and sister lived. The Sadler's life, however, is clouded by the tragedy of Noah's cancer, which has basically formed each family member into who they are today.
As for the Mahads, we see how their past experiences has created them, as well. <i>One of the strengths of this book is that we get small portions of narration from all of characters: the Sadlers, the Mahads, and Jim.</i> The bits and pieces you learn of the Mahad's origins--my goodness: it will break your heart. Macmillan captures the fear of the family because they are different due to the color of their skin and the country of their origin, yet you see their strength and pride shine across as well.
The main storyline of ODD CHILD OUT revolves around figuring out exactly what happened between the boys and how Noah ended up in the water. As mentioned, you get snippets from each character, as we slowly work up to that point of no return. We also get flashbacks to various pieces of earlier parts of their lives, and we start to realize that something has spooked the Mahad family--something is not as it seems. <i>It's not your conventional mystery, per se, but it's compelling and certainly intriguing.</i>
At its core, this is a heartbreaking book whose strength lies in its characters. It's a wonderful exploration on race and immigration and how difficult it is to be deemed "different" by our society. What I loved about this book, though, is that you could also wonder: is either family truly all that different at its core? Every parent will go to any length to protect their child, after all. I highly recommend picking this one up. It can be read as a stand-alone, but if you want more insight into Jim and his mindset, you should definitely read the first book, [b:What She Knew|25817531|What She Knew (Jim Clemo #1)|Gilly Macmillan|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1441801604s/25817531.jpg|41344566], which is also excellent (my review <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1421220730?comment=172068859#comment_form">here</a>;). I can't wait to see what Macmillan comes up with next! 4+ stars.
In a perfect swirl of ARC goodness, I received a copy of this novel from both Librarything and Edelweiss. A huge thanks to them and the publisher for a copy in return for an unbiased review. The book is available for purchase everywhere.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
<i>This is another gorgeous gem of a novel by Macmillan</i>, who offers yet one more beautifully-written mystery combined with lovely, perfectly drawn characters. This book touched me in so many ways, and <i>I just cannot keep raving enough about how well this author writes, or how she so excellently embodies her characters</i>. Again, this is no straightforward mystery, or simple fiction, but a wonderful combination of the two.
For me, this book really hit from home the beginning, as Jim mentions how an anti-immigration march by a neo-Nazi group has rocked Bristol, wrecking havoc on the police force, as well as emotions in the area. It's clear that racial tensions are high. As someone who was born in Charlottesville, VA, and lived in the suburbs of the area for the last nearly ten years, I felt this in my heart all too well. The backdrop of race stretches across the fabric of Macmillan's entire novel, and it's quite well done, in my opinion.
On one end, we have the Sadler family--well-off and British: Noah attends a posh private school, Fiona manages Noah and Noah's illness, and Ed is a photographer--often of refugees. In fact, we learn that he's even photographed the very camp where Abdi's parents and sister lived. The Sadler's life, however, is clouded by the tragedy of Noah's cancer, which has basically formed each family member into who they are today.
As for the Mahads, we see how their past experiences has created them, as well. <i>One of the strengths of this book is that we get small portions of narration from all of characters: the Sadlers, the Mahads, and Jim.</i> The bits and pieces you learn of the Mahad's origins--my goodness: it will break your heart. Macmillan captures the fear of the family because they are different due to the color of their skin and the country of their origin, yet you see their strength and pride shine across as well.
The main storyline of ODD CHILD OUT revolves around figuring out exactly what happened between the boys and how Noah ended up in the water. As mentioned, you get snippets from each character, as we slowly work up to that point of no return. We also get flashbacks to various pieces of earlier parts of their lives, and we start to realize that something has spooked the Mahad family--something is not as it seems. <i>It's not your conventional mystery, per se, but it's compelling and certainly intriguing.</i>
At its core, this is a heartbreaking book whose strength lies in its characters. It's a wonderful exploration on race and immigration and how difficult it is to be deemed "different" by our society. What I loved about this book, though, is that you could also wonder: is either family truly all that different at its core? Every parent will go to any length to protect their child, after all. I highly recommend picking this one up. It can be read as a stand-alone, but if you want more insight into Jim and his mindset, you should definitely read the first book, [b:What She Knew|25817531|What She Knew (Jim Clemo #1)|Gilly Macmillan|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1441801604s/25817531.jpg|41344566], which is also excellent (my review <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1421220730?comment=172068859#comment_form">here</a>;). I can't wait to see what Macmillan comes up with next! 4+ stars.
In a perfect swirl of ARC goodness, I received a copy of this novel from both Librarything and Edelweiss. A huge thanks to them and the publisher for a copy in return for an unbiased review. The book is available for purchase everywhere.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PC version of Wolfenstein: The New Order in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Although I’m undoubtedly dating myself by admitting this, I can finally remember playing Castle Wolfenstein and Return to Castle Wolfenstein in the 80s on an Apple IIe computer. Highly innovative for its time the game helped spawn the rise of the first-person shooter when it reemerged in the 90s and has had successful returns approximately every few years since. Machine Games working with the Id Tech 5 engine via Bethesda/Zenimax has given gamers a very graphically impressive new entry into the series called Wolfenstein: The New Order.
Once again playing as BJ Blazkowicz, players will take on the darkest forces that the Nazi’s can unleash and in a very interesting new twist, the game starts in World War II and then ventures to 1960 where BJ is recovering from an injury and awakens from a coma to a world where the Nazis have unleashed atomic weapons on the United States and have won the war.
BJ must gather up his strength and locate the few remaining resistance fighters left alive to mount a counter attack to save the day. While this sounds simple enough, it is anything but as the legions of adversaries in your way are daunting and challenging.
Not only are there the standard Nazi goons, but there are mechanized units that are clad in armor and do huge amounts of damage with their weapons as well as plenty of nasty characters along the way for you to deal with.
Thankfully to go with your hate of the Nazis you have an impressive arsenal including knives, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, energy weapons, Tesla grenades, and a sniper rifle, many of which can be dual wielded to get that extra ounce of carnage.
There are also gun emplacements which can be manned to mow down the hordes or can be detached to serve as a heavy hitter even though your mobility is greatly reduced.
The game is very hardcore in its content as sex, language, and graphic violence are the norm but when you consider locales ranging from concentration camps to battlefield strongholds are the norm, this is not a tea and cookies type of game.
There is plenty to like about the game from the great looking graphics to the characters and storyline and I really enjoyed the moon level of the game complete with my space suit and walk in reduced gravity with muffled sound.
That being said, there are a few things that became frustrating to me from time to time. First off, the game does have a few timed jumps and puzzles including one early in the game. Playing on a PC, it was a pain to set the keys the way that was best to do said jumps yet maintain the settings I wanted for the rest of the game.
If I wanted timed jumps to and from platforms, I would fire up the Wii U and load up something in the Donkey Kong or Mario line, as in a game of this type, want the action to flow without having to make a leap in order to advance the story.
I could also see the influence of Call of Duty on games of this type as there were the levels of wave after wave coming at you as well as the stealth missions and checkpoint save system. All of which have become all too standard in this era of consoles. I miss the day when I could save my progress at any point in a game.
This would have been nice as the game does have some very tough challenges but thankfully players can adjust their skill level as they go so if they become overly frustrated they can lower the difficulty and play on.
The game has a great energy weapon with a dual use cutting tool which allowed me to cut through vents and chains, and the use of metal scraps to increase your armor was a nice throwback to the earlier games in the series.
I really admired how the designers took the best parts of the series yet improved the graphics and told a story that was darker and more engaging than ever before.
The game does not have a multiplay feature which is a disappointment as I had hoped to get online with the amazing maps and weapons of the game, but who knows what the future will hold.
With over 20 hours of gameplay, there is much that I liked about the game and upon completion I was able to overlook many of the frustrations I had in game.
The ending is open to interpretations so who knows what the future of the series will be, but I think that we have not seen the last of the series, and I look forward to more in a few years.
http://sknr.net/2014/06/23/wolfenstein-new-order/
Once again playing as BJ Blazkowicz, players will take on the darkest forces that the Nazi’s can unleash and in a very interesting new twist, the game starts in World War II and then ventures to 1960 where BJ is recovering from an injury and awakens from a coma to a world where the Nazis have unleashed atomic weapons on the United States and have won the war.
BJ must gather up his strength and locate the few remaining resistance fighters left alive to mount a counter attack to save the day. While this sounds simple enough, it is anything but as the legions of adversaries in your way are daunting and challenging.
Not only are there the standard Nazi goons, but there are mechanized units that are clad in armor and do huge amounts of damage with their weapons as well as plenty of nasty characters along the way for you to deal with.
Thankfully to go with your hate of the Nazis you have an impressive arsenal including knives, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, energy weapons, Tesla grenades, and a sniper rifle, many of which can be dual wielded to get that extra ounce of carnage.
There are also gun emplacements which can be manned to mow down the hordes or can be detached to serve as a heavy hitter even though your mobility is greatly reduced.
The game is very hardcore in its content as sex, language, and graphic violence are the norm but when you consider locales ranging from concentration camps to battlefield strongholds are the norm, this is not a tea and cookies type of game.
There is plenty to like about the game from the great looking graphics to the characters and storyline and I really enjoyed the moon level of the game complete with my space suit and walk in reduced gravity with muffled sound.
That being said, there are a few things that became frustrating to me from time to time. First off, the game does have a few timed jumps and puzzles including one early in the game. Playing on a PC, it was a pain to set the keys the way that was best to do said jumps yet maintain the settings I wanted for the rest of the game.
If I wanted timed jumps to and from platforms, I would fire up the Wii U and load up something in the Donkey Kong or Mario line, as in a game of this type, want the action to flow without having to make a leap in order to advance the story.
I could also see the influence of Call of Duty on games of this type as there were the levels of wave after wave coming at you as well as the stealth missions and checkpoint save system. All of which have become all too standard in this era of consoles. I miss the day when I could save my progress at any point in a game.
This would have been nice as the game does have some very tough challenges but thankfully players can adjust their skill level as they go so if they become overly frustrated they can lower the difficulty and play on.
The game has a great energy weapon with a dual use cutting tool which allowed me to cut through vents and chains, and the use of metal scraps to increase your armor was a nice throwback to the earlier games in the series.
I really admired how the designers took the best parts of the series yet improved the graphics and told a story that was darker and more engaging than ever before.
The game does not have a multiplay feature which is a disappointment as I had hoped to get online with the amazing maps and weapons of the game, but who knows what the future will hold.
With over 20 hours of gameplay, there is much that I liked about the game and upon completion I was able to overlook many of the frustrations I had in game.
The ending is open to interpretations so who knows what the future of the series will be, but I think that we have not seen the last of the series, and I look forward to more in a few years.
http://sknr.net/2014/06/23/wolfenstein-new-order/