Search
Search results
IntelliDrink PRO - Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Calculator
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
IntelliDrink is a sophisticated blood alcohol content (BAC) calculator. It has a simple user...
Detox Diet Pro - Cleanse and Flush the Body
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
Detox diet is a recipe app that provides over 100 recipes to help you lead a healthier life. ...
Gypsy Jazz Guitar Secrets Magazine - Learn To Play Guitar Like Django Reinhardt
Music and Magazines & Newspapers
8.0
Rate It
App
*WHAT PEOPLE THINK* 5-Stars: "If you play guitar, it's practically a crime not to check this out!...
StickyStudy Japanese
Education and Productivity
App
** Now with a kanji writing trainer and native-speaker audio ** The #1 Japanese flashcard app. ...
Dressbox — your closet organizer.
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Do you want to be more organized and even more attractive? Now it is possible with e-wardrobe...
Planescape: Torment
Games
1.0
Rate It
App
Reviewers say: "Planescape: Torment is a wonderful game, and its Enhanced Edition is a splendid,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Ama (21 KP) rated Detroit (2017) in Movies
Sep 11, 2017
Shattering
The first couple of questions when writing a review here are What's good? and What's bad?
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Dead Perfect in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Shannah is going to die. She has a blood disease that none of the doctors can identify, and she only has months to live. She’s on her last month, possibly her last week… she hates to think it’s her last day, but it sure feels like it. She has been watching the strange tall, dark (and hansom) man for several months, and is convinced that he is a vampire (though she’s not exactly sane when she makes that decision). She goes to him seeking immortality, but collapses in near death on his front porch. When she wakes up, she feels better. What did he do that healed her? She’s not a vampire, but even the doctors couldn’t heal her… then there’s the fact that she’s pretty sure that she’s falling in love with him. but Ronan’s healing doesn’t last forever… and Shannah has to make a hard choice.
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz