Search
Search results
Midge (525 KP) rated Salvation in Death (In Death, #27) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
Lovely portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters (1 more)
Some hilarious moments
Gripping And Very Interesting!
Immediately after drinking the wine during a Catholic funeral mass, Father Miguel Flores is dead on the altar. Detective Lieutenant Eve Dallas confirms that the consecrated wine contained potassium cyanide. Though the East Harlem neighbourhood is a long way from the stone mansion she shares with her billionaire husband Roarke, she knows she's looking for a murderer.
The autopsy reveals faint scars of knife wounds, a removed tattoo and evidence of plastic surgery, suggesting “Father Flores” may not be the man his parishioners thought. Now, as Eve pieces together clues that suggest identity theft, gang connections, and a deeply personal act of revenge, she hopes to track down whoever committed this unholy act. Then a second murder takes place, in front of an even larger crowd of worshippers. Are the homicides linked?
Salvation in Death is the 27th book of the "In Death" series, with Eve and Roarke as the lead characters.
Salvation in Death begins with the poisoning of a Catholic priest during mass. The priest, a passionate, dedicated and energetic member of the community, seems to have no enemies. He cared especially about young people, was not depressed, stressed or troubled and every member of the church looked up to him. But when his autopsy reveals some old scars and a covered tattoo, Eve realises that the priest must have some dark secrets in his past. When the tattoo points to a ruthless badass gang, Eve is not convinced that the priest is the person he purports to be. When another religious leader is also killed, Eve and her team have to investigate whether there is a serial killer on the loose or if the cases are coincidental in their timing.
This is the first book I have read from the "In Death" series by J. D. Robb, the pseudonym of Nora Roberts. I loved the portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters, Eve and Roarke, particularly,
"Everything and all things. That was Eve for him. Nothing he'd ever dreamed of, even in secret in the dirty alleys of Dublin, approached the reality of her. Nothing he possessed could ever be as precious. The taste of her in the cool night, in the pale light, stirred a craving he understood would never be fully sated."
There is an impressive number of characters in this crime novel which I have to say made it a little difficult to follow at times. Others that I found an affinity with were Peabody and her significant other and work colleague, McNab.
"They were a good ten feet from the Homicide bullpen when Peabody's nose went up like a hound on the hunt. "I smell doughnuts." When Peabody increased her pace, Eve started to roll her eyes, but then she smelled them, too."
I also liked the following quote including McNab:-
"We got a snag. One of the sons-in-law's a lawyer." "Shit." "Ain't that always the way?" ......."So. He's making lawyer noises. It's after two A.M., and people have been held here for over four hours, yaddah-blah-blah." "Did you get anything from the interviews?" "Nothing that buzzed and popped......"
Eve is really out of her comfort zone investigating murders that have taken place in Catholic churches. She obviously has a past that she has to come to terms with which she seems to make some progress in Salvation in Death. Roarke and she have a great deal of chemistry between them and are very hot together and Roarke has some hilarious moments that make him adorable. He is there for her when certain aspects of the case trouble her and she is needing clarity, but she is by his side when he is struggling with some bad memories of his own. They make a brilliant team and I can't wait to read more of them.
I really surprised myself in that I chose to read this crime novel at all as I don't generally go for books relating to Catholicism. However, I thought it was very nicely written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. The ending was a surprise to me, and I loved the way the book was concluded. Reading Salvation in Death has inspired me to read other "In Deaths" and also other Nora Roberts novels.
Overall, Salvation in Death is a gripping and very interesting read.
The autopsy reveals faint scars of knife wounds, a removed tattoo and evidence of plastic surgery, suggesting “Father Flores” may not be the man his parishioners thought. Now, as Eve pieces together clues that suggest identity theft, gang connections, and a deeply personal act of revenge, she hopes to track down whoever committed this unholy act. Then a second murder takes place, in front of an even larger crowd of worshippers. Are the homicides linked?
Salvation in Death is the 27th book of the "In Death" series, with Eve and Roarke as the lead characters.
Salvation in Death begins with the poisoning of a Catholic priest during mass. The priest, a passionate, dedicated and energetic member of the community, seems to have no enemies. He cared especially about young people, was not depressed, stressed or troubled and every member of the church looked up to him. But when his autopsy reveals some old scars and a covered tattoo, Eve realises that the priest must have some dark secrets in his past. When the tattoo points to a ruthless badass gang, Eve is not convinced that the priest is the person he purports to be. When another religious leader is also killed, Eve and her team have to investigate whether there is a serial killer on the loose or if the cases are coincidental in their timing.
This is the first book I have read from the "In Death" series by J. D. Robb, the pseudonym of Nora Roberts. I loved the portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters, Eve and Roarke, particularly,
"Everything and all things. That was Eve for him. Nothing he'd ever dreamed of, even in secret in the dirty alleys of Dublin, approached the reality of her. Nothing he possessed could ever be as precious. The taste of her in the cool night, in the pale light, stirred a craving he understood would never be fully sated."
There is an impressive number of characters in this crime novel which I have to say made it a little difficult to follow at times. Others that I found an affinity with were Peabody and her significant other and work colleague, McNab.
"They were a good ten feet from the Homicide bullpen when Peabody's nose went up like a hound on the hunt. "I smell doughnuts." When Peabody increased her pace, Eve started to roll her eyes, but then she smelled them, too."
I also liked the following quote including McNab:-
"We got a snag. One of the sons-in-law's a lawyer." "Shit." "Ain't that always the way?" ......."So. He's making lawyer noises. It's after two A.M., and people have been held here for over four hours, yaddah-blah-blah." "Did you get anything from the interviews?" "Nothing that buzzed and popped......"
Eve is really out of her comfort zone investigating murders that have taken place in Catholic churches. She obviously has a past that she has to come to terms with which she seems to make some progress in Salvation in Death. Roarke and she have a great deal of chemistry between them and are very hot together and Roarke has some hilarious moments that make him adorable. He is there for her when certain aspects of the case trouble her and she is needing clarity, but she is by his side when he is struggling with some bad memories of his own. They make a brilliant team and I can't wait to read more of them.
I really surprised myself in that I chose to read this crime novel at all as I don't generally go for books relating to Catholicism. However, I thought it was very nicely written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. The ending was a surprise to me, and I loved the way the book was concluded. Reading Salvation in Death has inspired me to read other "In Deaths" and also other Nora Roberts novels.
Overall, Salvation in Death is a gripping and very interesting read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Safe House (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a complicated deadly game of international espionage things are rarely what they appear to be. Take the case of Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a young man who, for all intents and purposes, appears to divide his time between his adoring French girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder) and a South African hospital. But if one were to pull back the curtain they would learn that Matt is actually a CIA agent who spends his time watching over a safe house, an assignment of painfully tedious monotony.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Divorce has been depicted many times onscreen, as it’s one of those difficult realities about adult relationships. There’s still a lot of stigma around the breakdown of a marriage, but Marriage Story deals with the topic in a very raw and unique way.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
One of the most important films in a generation
I don’t think anyone will have any qualms in me saying that the LGBT community is one of the most vastly underrepresented parts of society when it comes to mainstream Hollywood movies.
Sure, we’ve had indie hits like Call Me by Your Name and Moonlight that have also performed well at the Oscars, but the closest we’ve ever gotten to a mass-market crowd pleaser has been Ang Lee’s 2005 flick Brokeback Mountain and if we’re being honest, that wasn’t marketed in a way that made it particularly mainstream.
Aiming to change all that is Love, Simon. Based on the novel Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli, Love, Simon is the first truly mainstream rom-com that features a lead gay character. But is the film a beacon of hope for a massively underrepresented LGBT community or a movie that daren’t go too far?
Everyone deserves a great love story, but for 17-year-old Simon Spier (Nick Robinson), it’s a little more complicated. He hasn’t told his family or friends that he’s gay, and he doesn’t know the identity of the anonymous classmate that he’s fallen for online. Resolving both issues proves hilarious, terrifying and life-changing.
Love, Simon is one of the most important films in a generation. Aiming to please both everyday movie-goers and be sensitive to the issues that gay people face on a daily basis, it needs to tread a very careful line, and I’m pleased to say, it does so beautifully. From the exceptional performances of the entire cast, to the warming attempts at humour, it succeeds on almost every level.
Jurassic World’s Nick Robinson is outstanding as Simon. A 17-year-old who consistently struggles to accept who he truly is would be an incredibly difficult role for even the most seasoned actors to take on, but he really is wonderful to watch. As we journey across his troubled story, the audience feels fully immersed in his actions, even those that are, shall we say, questionable.
The supporting cast too, is excellent. Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel are a great, if slightly underused presence, as Simon’s parents and along with his sister Nora (played by Talitha Bateman), they make an entirely believable family unit and it’s lovely to see them rallying around him when the inevitable ‘outing’ occurs. One touching scene in particular featuring Garner speaking to her son is sure to turn on the waterworks for many.
Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson
Director Greg Berlanti is a relative newcomer to the world of romantic comedy, but he leads with a confidence that makes him appear seasoned at this game. Touching scenes of emotion are nicely interspersed with sequences of genuinely funny comedy – the sign of a great rom-com.
Special mention must go to Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms. Albright, who manages to garner most of the laughs throughout. All of this culminates in a sweet finale that ties together everything that’s happened over the previous 110 minutes very well indeed.
If we’re to look at some of the flaws then it’s fair to say that the story outside of it featuring a gay lead is completely unoriginal. It’s been done before, but that’s kind of its charm. Flipping the classic rom-com story on its head by allowing audiences across the world to see that being gay really isn’t easy is a really nice thing to see.
In a nutshell, Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson. It’ll make you laugh and it’ll make you cry, but this is a touching romantic comedy that will absolutely go down in the history books of film. Like Brokeback Mountain did for the older gay man, Love, Simon can be a shining light for young men who are struggling to accept who they truly are.
Is this a turning point for Hollywood? Well, let’s hope so.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/07/love-simon-review-one-of-the-most-important-films-in-a-generation/
Sure, we’ve had indie hits like Call Me by Your Name and Moonlight that have also performed well at the Oscars, but the closest we’ve ever gotten to a mass-market crowd pleaser has been Ang Lee’s 2005 flick Brokeback Mountain and if we’re being honest, that wasn’t marketed in a way that made it particularly mainstream.
Aiming to change all that is Love, Simon. Based on the novel Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli, Love, Simon is the first truly mainstream rom-com that features a lead gay character. But is the film a beacon of hope for a massively underrepresented LGBT community or a movie that daren’t go too far?
Everyone deserves a great love story, but for 17-year-old Simon Spier (Nick Robinson), it’s a little more complicated. He hasn’t told his family or friends that he’s gay, and he doesn’t know the identity of the anonymous classmate that he’s fallen for online. Resolving both issues proves hilarious, terrifying and life-changing.
Love, Simon is one of the most important films in a generation. Aiming to please both everyday movie-goers and be sensitive to the issues that gay people face on a daily basis, it needs to tread a very careful line, and I’m pleased to say, it does so beautifully. From the exceptional performances of the entire cast, to the warming attempts at humour, it succeeds on almost every level.
Jurassic World’s Nick Robinson is outstanding as Simon. A 17-year-old who consistently struggles to accept who he truly is would be an incredibly difficult role for even the most seasoned actors to take on, but he really is wonderful to watch. As we journey across his troubled story, the audience feels fully immersed in his actions, even those that are, shall we say, questionable.
The supporting cast too, is excellent. Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel are a great, if slightly underused presence, as Simon’s parents and along with his sister Nora (played by Talitha Bateman), they make an entirely believable family unit and it’s lovely to see them rallying around him when the inevitable ‘outing’ occurs. One touching scene in particular featuring Garner speaking to her son is sure to turn on the waterworks for many.
Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson
Director Greg Berlanti is a relative newcomer to the world of romantic comedy, but he leads with a confidence that makes him appear seasoned at this game. Touching scenes of emotion are nicely interspersed with sequences of genuinely funny comedy – the sign of a great rom-com.
Special mention must go to Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms. Albright, who manages to garner most of the laughs throughout. All of this culminates in a sweet finale that ties together everything that’s happened over the previous 110 minutes very well indeed.
If we’re to look at some of the flaws then it’s fair to say that the story outside of it featuring a gay lead is completely unoriginal. It’s been done before, but that’s kind of its charm. Flipping the classic rom-com story on its head by allowing audiences across the world to see that being gay really isn’t easy is a really nice thing to see.
In a nutshell, Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson. It’ll make you laugh and it’ll make you cry, but this is a touching romantic comedy that will absolutely go down in the history books of film. Like Brokeback Mountain did for the older gay man, Love, Simon can be a shining light for young men who are struggling to accept who they truly are.
Is this a turning point for Hollywood? Well, let’s hope so.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/07/love-simon-review-one-of-the-most-important-films-in-a-generation/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!