Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020
Moody and Atmospheric
Ever since his stint on ER, I have been a fan of George Clooney’s - and not just because he is charming and charismatic on film - but because I find that he brings an interesting facet to whatever character he inhabits
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Volume Sanity
Utilities and Entertainment
App
One big slider bar to control the system volume limit. Easy. Do you have a child who always plays...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Pudge & Prejudice in Books
Jan 31, 2021
I'm not big on romance novels, but when I saw the cover and synopsis of Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman, I knew that this was one book I had to read. It just seemed so relatable. I'm so happy that I did get a chance to read this book because I have become totally smitten with it!
I thought the plot for Pudge & Prejudice was very well written. It's 1984, and fifteen year old Elyse (nicknamed "Pudge" by her older sister) and her family have just moved to Texas. It's a bit of a culture shock at first, but Elyse learns the ropes quickly. While her beautiful, older sister Jayne has no trouble fitting in at high school, Elyse's body issues complicate things especially when it comes to guys like Billy Fritz. Will Elyse ever be able to get over her looks or will the way she thinks of herself be her downfall?
The plot for Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute one, and it's one I can semi-relate too. (I never had a crush on any of the football players at my school, but I was a chubby teen like Elyse.) Pittman does an excellent job of making the small Texas town that Elyse lives in come to life. I could picture every sight, taste, and smell throughout the book. I just had to open my book, and I was instantly transported. The pacing for Pudge & Prejudice was spot on. I found myself not wanting to put this book down. It held my interest from the very first page. I loved the 1980's references, and I was glad that they weren't overdone like some other books. One thing that I did enjoy about Pudge & Prejudice is that the romance isn't all in your face. It's hard for me to describe, but although there was some romance, it wasn't what the whole book was about. I didn't spot any plot twists, but Pudge & Prejudice is such a fantastic book that it didn't need any plot twists. There was a minor cliffhanger at the end of the book which mentions the summer after Elyse's sophomore year. I'm hoping this will turn into a series because I would love to see what happened to Elyse and her sister Jayne that summer. (I was so sad when the book ended.) I will say that I did find some of the book a bit unrealistic as to who crushes on Elyse. I have never known something like that to happen. Maybe it happens to a small minority, but I never knew it to happen at any school I had ever known. However, this was such a sweet and fun read that I didn't mind. I liked seeing how the story would progress.
Kudos to A.K. Pittman for writing such fantastic well fleshed out characters! I think I knew someone like each character mentioned when I was in school. I could picture each character in Pudge & Prejudice as if they were someone I knew in real life. Elyse was the most relatable character for me. I was her in high school (minus the crush on a football player). I sympathized with her more than any other character I've ever came across in a book. Pittman's portrayal of an overweight teen struggling with self esteem issues was perfect. I loved how sweet Jayne, Elyse's older sister, was. I loved the relationship between between Jayne and Elyse. The way they looked out for each other was really sweet. Charlie was also a really nice guy, and it was interesting to read about his and Jayne's relationship especially when the problem of sports came up. Billy was an interesting character. He's the only one that I couldn't imagine knowing in real life. Perhaps they are unicorns at exist somewhere, but I had never known anyone like Billy when I was a teen (and even now). However, Billy was a complex and great character. I did enjoy reading about him. Lottie was well fleshed out, but she seemed a bit too snobby for my liking. She was way too blunt and what she said about her boyfriend really irked me. She treated her boyfriend horribly. If I was Elyse, I wouldn't have been friends with her for very long, but I understand how hard it was for Elyse to make friends. Unfortunately, I did know people like Lottie in my school. Lydia (Elyse's younger sister) was fun to read about as was Gage although I never really trusted Gage for some reason.
Trigger warnings for Pudge & Prejudice include minor kissing, a mention of sex, a mention of punching someone, cheating, and body issues.
All in all, Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute and fun read. It's got such a relatable plot and a cast full of characters that everyone can relate to. This is one book that I could definitely picture as a successful Netflix series. (I know I'd binge watch for sure!) I would definitely recommend Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman to everyone aged 13+ that are after a sweet and fun read. This is one book that will leave you smiling long after you've read it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with a paperback copy of Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I thought the plot for Pudge & Prejudice was very well written. It's 1984, and fifteen year old Elyse (nicknamed "Pudge" by her older sister) and her family have just moved to Texas. It's a bit of a culture shock at first, but Elyse learns the ropes quickly. While her beautiful, older sister Jayne has no trouble fitting in at high school, Elyse's body issues complicate things especially when it comes to guys like Billy Fritz. Will Elyse ever be able to get over her looks or will the way she thinks of herself be her downfall?
The plot for Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute one, and it's one I can semi-relate too. (I never had a crush on any of the football players at my school, but I was a chubby teen like Elyse.) Pittman does an excellent job of making the small Texas town that Elyse lives in come to life. I could picture every sight, taste, and smell throughout the book. I just had to open my book, and I was instantly transported. The pacing for Pudge & Prejudice was spot on. I found myself not wanting to put this book down. It held my interest from the very first page. I loved the 1980's references, and I was glad that they weren't overdone like some other books. One thing that I did enjoy about Pudge & Prejudice is that the romance isn't all in your face. It's hard for me to describe, but although there was some romance, it wasn't what the whole book was about. I didn't spot any plot twists, but Pudge & Prejudice is such a fantastic book that it didn't need any plot twists. There was a minor cliffhanger at the end of the book which mentions the summer after Elyse's sophomore year. I'm hoping this will turn into a series because I would love to see what happened to Elyse and her sister Jayne that summer. (I was so sad when the book ended.) I will say that I did find some of the book a bit unrealistic as to who crushes on Elyse. I have never known something like that to happen. Maybe it happens to a small minority, but I never knew it to happen at any school I had ever known. However, this was such a sweet and fun read that I didn't mind. I liked seeing how the story would progress.
Kudos to A.K. Pittman for writing such fantastic well fleshed out characters! I think I knew someone like each character mentioned when I was in school. I could picture each character in Pudge & Prejudice as if they were someone I knew in real life. Elyse was the most relatable character for me. I was her in high school (minus the crush on a football player). I sympathized with her more than any other character I've ever came across in a book. Pittman's portrayal of an overweight teen struggling with self esteem issues was perfect. I loved how sweet Jayne, Elyse's older sister, was. I loved the relationship between between Jayne and Elyse. The way they looked out for each other was really sweet. Charlie was also a really nice guy, and it was interesting to read about his and Jayne's relationship especially when the problem of sports came up. Billy was an interesting character. He's the only one that I couldn't imagine knowing in real life. Perhaps they are unicorns at exist somewhere, but I had never known anyone like Billy when I was a teen (and even now). However, Billy was a complex and great character. I did enjoy reading about him. Lottie was well fleshed out, but she seemed a bit too snobby for my liking. She was way too blunt and what she said about her boyfriend really irked me. She treated her boyfriend horribly. If I was Elyse, I wouldn't have been friends with her for very long, but I understand how hard it was for Elyse to make friends. Unfortunately, I did know people like Lottie in my school. Lydia (Elyse's younger sister) was fun to read about as was Gage although I never really trusted Gage for some reason.
Trigger warnings for Pudge & Prejudice include minor kissing, a mention of sex, a mention of punching someone, cheating, and body issues.
All in all, Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute and fun read. It's got such a relatable plot and a cast full of characters that everyone can relate to. This is one book that I could definitely picture as a successful Netflix series. (I know I'd binge watch for sure!) I would definitely recommend Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman to everyone aged 13+ that are after a sweet and fun read. This is one book that will leave you smiling long after you've read it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with a paperback copy of Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
