Search
Search results
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Harkening back to the days of episodic serials, “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” attempts to blend the thrills of the old adventure films and serials with the high tech computer effects of the modern age.
The film stars Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law as reporter Polly Prince and Aviator Sky Captain, who are reunited during a surprise attack on New York by an army of robot . Polly has been investigating a recent wake of scientists who have vanished under mysterious circumstances, and when the robots attack, Polly sees a connection and gets in contact with her old flame the Sky Captain.
Sky Captain is not thrilled to see Polly as he does not trust her, especially when they last parted under a difficult situation where the Sky Captain was left in a dangerous situation as a result of Polly’s ambition. Nevertheless, the duo team up and investigate the cause of the attacks. No sooner does the duo start the investigation, then Sky Captain’s base is attacked and his friend and gadget creator Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), has been kidnapped.
In a race against time to save Dex and stop the evil Dr. Totenkoph from destroying the world, Sky Captain and Polly must travel the globe meeting all manner of deadly and bizarre resistance in some of the most remote locations on the planet. Eventually the team meets up with Captain Franky Cook, (Angelina Jolie), who also has a past with Sky Captain, and her legion of flying forces help stage an attack on the good doctors compound in a lavish display of FX and action as they attempt to gain entry to a hidden fortress.
With the clock ticking, and the situation growing tense, Sky Captain and his crew must traverse the exotic and deadly location of the hidden location before it is to late if they are to stop the doctor and his henchmen (Bai Ling), and save Dex, the missing scientists, and the world.
While ambitious “Sky Captain” suffers from a lack of focus as the film tries to do too much. Writer/Director Kerry Conran does a good job in his first feature, as he is able to blend lavish visuals in a unique and creative way to create and populate the world of the film. Sadly though, the performances of Paltrow and Law are remarkably understated and the talented cast often comes across as bland. This causes the audience to have little connection with the characters and any real tension or chemistry is sadly lacking. We know there was some history between the two lead characters but it is mostly glossed over in favor of the action that after a while comes across as more of the same and becomes bland. Only the Franky character stands out as Jollie plays her with a sultry charm and flair that hides her devilish streak, yet emphasizes the strength of her character and her loyalty to the captain.
I had really wanted to like this film, as I found the premise to be interesting, however the action sequences were rather under whelming and to me it was very obvious that the film was filmed entirely against screens and used CGI for everything from buildings to sets. While ambitious, it became overwhelming after a while and in more than one instance the backgrounds were obviously false and did not match up well with the actors.
While this can be excused, what cant be a pedestrian plot that borrows heavily from other works, and while they like this film were inspired by the serials of old, and pulp comics, I could not help but see the “Indiana Jones”, “Star Wars”, and “Jurassic Park”, over and over in the film. Law, Jolie and Paltrow are talented actors but they are given little to do aside from run around and spout stale dialogue from a story that is already muddled down by a lackluster plot, lack of tension, pacing, and average special effects.
Conran is a director with promise and it should be noted that despite the film’s faults, the film was a daunting task as it was shot in just 29 days, which would strain even the most seasoned of directors. As it stands “Sky Captain” is an average film that could have been much better with just a little more time in the hangar.
The film stars Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law as reporter Polly Prince and Aviator Sky Captain, who are reunited during a surprise attack on New York by an army of robot . Polly has been investigating a recent wake of scientists who have vanished under mysterious circumstances, and when the robots attack, Polly sees a connection and gets in contact with her old flame the Sky Captain.
Sky Captain is not thrilled to see Polly as he does not trust her, especially when they last parted under a difficult situation where the Sky Captain was left in a dangerous situation as a result of Polly’s ambition. Nevertheless, the duo team up and investigate the cause of the attacks. No sooner does the duo start the investigation, then Sky Captain’s base is attacked and his friend and gadget creator Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), has been kidnapped.
In a race against time to save Dex and stop the evil Dr. Totenkoph from destroying the world, Sky Captain and Polly must travel the globe meeting all manner of deadly and bizarre resistance in some of the most remote locations on the planet. Eventually the team meets up with Captain Franky Cook, (Angelina Jolie), who also has a past with Sky Captain, and her legion of flying forces help stage an attack on the good doctors compound in a lavish display of FX and action as they attempt to gain entry to a hidden fortress.
With the clock ticking, and the situation growing tense, Sky Captain and his crew must traverse the exotic and deadly location of the hidden location before it is to late if they are to stop the doctor and his henchmen (Bai Ling), and save Dex, the missing scientists, and the world.
While ambitious “Sky Captain” suffers from a lack of focus as the film tries to do too much. Writer/Director Kerry Conran does a good job in his first feature, as he is able to blend lavish visuals in a unique and creative way to create and populate the world of the film. Sadly though, the performances of Paltrow and Law are remarkably understated and the talented cast often comes across as bland. This causes the audience to have little connection with the characters and any real tension or chemistry is sadly lacking. We know there was some history between the two lead characters but it is mostly glossed over in favor of the action that after a while comes across as more of the same and becomes bland. Only the Franky character stands out as Jollie plays her with a sultry charm and flair that hides her devilish streak, yet emphasizes the strength of her character and her loyalty to the captain.
I had really wanted to like this film, as I found the premise to be interesting, however the action sequences were rather under whelming and to me it was very obvious that the film was filmed entirely against screens and used CGI for everything from buildings to sets. While ambitious, it became overwhelming after a while and in more than one instance the backgrounds were obviously false and did not match up well with the actors.
While this can be excused, what cant be a pedestrian plot that borrows heavily from other works, and while they like this film were inspired by the serials of old, and pulp comics, I could not help but see the “Indiana Jones”, “Star Wars”, and “Jurassic Park”, over and over in the film. Law, Jolie and Paltrow are talented actors but they are given little to do aside from run around and spout stale dialogue from a story that is already muddled down by a lackluster plot, lack of tension, pacing, and average special effects.
Conran is a director with promise and it should be noted that despite the film’s faults, the film was a daunting task as it was shot in just 29 days, which would strain even the most seasoned of directors. As it stands “Sky Captain” is an average film that could have been much better with just a little more time in the hangar.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Memoirs of a Geisha in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Memoirs of a Geisha is a historical fiction book published on September 27th 1997. Told in the first person Viewpoint of Geisha Sayuri (Original name Chiyo), It follows her journey from her childhood in a fishing village on the coast of Japan, forcibly taken to a Hanamachi in Gion Kyoto and raised to become a Geisha before experiencing the horrors of WW2 and being a Geisha during the hard work of rebuilding after a harrowing defeat.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Veronica Mars (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The incomparable Rob Thomas has delivered a masterpiece of dramatic film that all Veronica Mars fans will thoroughly enjoy.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
There was some genuine surprise when I saw this had been made as an Amazon Original. I thought the character of Borat was old news, there certainly couldn’t be anyone left, in America or otherwise, that wasn’t wise to the joke by now, and aware of Sasha Baron Cohen’s desire to satirise the hell out of everything dumb folk may stand for. For it to work people have to believe 100% that he is a real person, this is what made the first film so incredible to watch – the opened mouthed awe at the pure audacity of the performer and the pure stupidity of the “victims”. But, I guess he figured a way around it, and also realised that no one but Borat could better lampoon the very worst aspects of the America the Trump era has created.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
Johnny Marr recommended track Coconut Grove by The Lovin Spoonful in Very Best of the Lovin' Spoonful by The Lovin Spoonful in Music (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: The Devil Wears Prada starts as newly graduated journalist Andy Sachs (Hathaway) gets a chance to work as the second assistant to editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly (Streep) at a high fashion magazine. Andy is one of many applicates only she doesn’t have the knowledge of the fashion world, unlike the first assistant Emily (Blunt).
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Bland and boring DESPITE J-Lo's performance
When I first saw the trailer for the Jennifer Lopez "strippers get back at scummy Wall Street-types" film, HUSTLERS, I wasn't at all interested in seeing it But then I got wind of strong early reviews with some (very faint) Oscar talk about J-Lo's performance in this film, so I thought I'd check it out.
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!