Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Finest Hours (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The Finest Hours tells the story of four men who, in February of 1952, undertook one of the most daring rescue attempts in the history of the Unites States Coast Guard. A tanker, the SS Pendleton, is caught in a storm off the coast of New England and is ripped in half, leaving more than 30 sailors adrift and sinking. While Bernard Webber (Chris Pine) leads an impossible rescue in a lifeboat designed to hold only 12, his fiancée, Miriam (Holliday Grainger), struggles to come to terms with what it means to be the wife of a man who has to willingly risk his life for others.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated House of M in Books
Nov 30, 2020
*** <i>Read the entire story while listening to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' score to GONE GIRL. Not saying it would be for everyone, but it definitely worked for my re-reading.</i>
I have mentioned this in my graphic novel reviews of late, that I have been doing a fair amount of re-reads since making the transition to digital. It's such a delight to be able to read the comics again without fear of ruining the pages if I am eating or drinking! And best of all? The graphic novels (and books) read take up zero space, helping me to continue to maintain a minimalist lifestyle.
Okay, on to the review..
I originally read the HOUSE OF M about a year or so after it was published in trade paperback. At that time, I recall liking it well enough, thinking that Bendis did a good job. It was not good enough, at that time, to leave a lasting impression on me, unlike other Marvel events before it. With the move to digital, and with a price I could not refuse, I felt it was time to revisit the series and see how it would fare with my not-as-cluttered mental state.
First, let me just <b>"WOW!"</b>. No, seriously! For a re-read, it felt decidely fresh and much more engaging that it was for me first time out. The story was quite good, helping fulfill my Daily Minimum Requuirement of Angst Bendis wrote everyone in character, and he made it was easy to empathize with the characters, as they dealt with effects of the world presented in HOUSE OF M.
One thing that really made HOUSE OF M stand out, besides the story, was the art. Oliver Coipel's pencils were perfecting, offering clear expressions, helping to capture the mood(s) needed throughout! Coipel's was given some solid inkers to finish it: Tim Townsend, Rick Magyar, Scott Hanna, and John Dell. And let us not forget to mention the final icing on the cake: that super awesome coloring from Frank D'Armata. Seriously, a big hand goes out to all of this top notch collaborative effort!
I won't try to tell anyone how to read this, or anything for that matter. However, I will say that for my re-reading, I would stop every so often and reflect, to imagine what it must have been like for Wanda (Scarlet Witch) to have to live going forward after being told your children were just fabrications! And then, even further, to learn what she did at the end of HOUSE OF M! Seriously, regardless of whether you love or hate Bendis, this was heavy stuff to swallow! Sadly, it seems to been retconned by Marvel!
If you are tired of the current events "daisy chaining" that Marvel feels compelled to continue churning out, you could do a whole lot worse than HOUSE OF M. Bendis puts forward some interesting ideas, and seeing them play out is a hell of a good read! It is probably one of his best Marvel contributions, next to his DAREDEVIL! I urge you to give it a shot! You, like me, may need a second reading, but I think you will enjoy it!
Now, I am off to read the post-HOUSE OF M stuff, as well as AVENGERS: DISASSEMBLED, which leads into HOUSE OF M, and which I did not read when HOUSE OF M first came out.
I have mentioned this in my graphic novel reviews of late, that I have been doing a fair amount of re-reads since making the transition to digital. It's such a delight to be able to read the comics again without fear of ruining the pages if I am eating or drinking! And best of all? The graphic novels (and books) read take up zero space, helping me to continue to maintain a minimalist lifestyle.
Okay, on to the review..
I originally read the HOUSE OF M about a year or so after it was published in trade paperback. At that time, I recall liking it well enough, thinking that Bendis did a good job. It was not good enough, at that time, to leave a lasting impression on me, unlike other Marvel events before it. With the move to digital, and with a price I could not refuse, I felt it was time to revisit the series and see how it would fare with my not-as-cluttered mental state.
First, let me just <b>"WOW!"</b>. No, seriously! For a re-read, it felt decidely fresh and much more engaging that it was for me first time out. The story was quite good, helping fulfill my Daily Minimum Requuirement of Angst Bendis wrote everyone in character, and he made it was easy to empathize with the characters, as they dealt with effects of the world presented in HOUSE OF M.
One thing that really made HOUSE OF M stand out, besides the story, was the art. Oliver Coipel's pencils were perfecting, offering clear expressions, helping to capture the mood(s) needed throughout! Coipel's was given some solid inkers to finish it: Tim Townsend, Rick Magyar, Scott Hanna, and John Dell. And let us not forget to mention the final icing on the cake: that super awesome coloring from Frank D'Armata. Seriously, a big hand goes out to all of this top notch collaborative effort!
I won't try to tell anyone how to read this, or anything for that matter. However, I will say that for my re-reading, I would stop every so often and reflect, to imagine what it must have been like for Wanda (Scarlet Witch) to have to live going forward after being told your children were just fabrications! And then, even further, to learn what she did at the end of HOUSE OF M! Seriously, regardless of whether you love or hate Bendis, this was heavy stuff to swallow! Sadly, it seems to been retconned by Marvel!
If you are tired of the current events "daisy chaining" that Marvel feels compelled to continue churning out, you could do a whole lot worse than HOUSE OF M. Bendis puts forward some interesting ideas, and seeing them play out is a hell of a good read! It is probably one of his best Marvel contributions, next to his DAREDEVIL! I urge you to give it a shot! You, like me, may need a second reading, but I think you will enjoy it!
Now, I am off to read the post-HOUSE OF M stuff, as well as AVENGERS: DISASSEMBLED, which leads into HOUSE OF M, and which I did not read when HOUSE OF M first came out.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eternal Code (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Corey is a homeless suicidal war veteran, he keeps to himself and when he gets given money, he spends the money on helping the fellow homeless, being friendly with lonely older men in the park and helping somebody in danger. He will get a chance to use his skills once again to help a teenage girl who is being hunted down by criminals, his skills will help make him deadly to anyone who crosses his path. Oliver is the leader of the project, he wants to continue using it for his own good, which means he will go to the extremes to make sure it gets done. Charlie is one of the criminals that has taken the family members, she along with her team are solely in this for the money. Mark is the husband of Bridget, he tries to advice, even though he will only support her decision. Bridget is the woman that has invented a revolutionary idea, which she doesn’t want used for the wrong thing, her pulling the plug has set about the events including her kidnapping.
Performances – This is a movie that does try to use the biggest names to sale the movie, Scout Taylor-Compton being the biggest name in the film, even though she is mostly just a criminal thug, she doesn’t give us a bad performance, just she isn’t really a main character. Damien Chinappi would be one of the leads in the film as the he does bring us a performance that does fit the action side of the film, where we do feel sympathy for his character. Richard Tyson will always make for a great villain and this is no different. When we look at the rest of the cast, we see solid performances across the board.
Story – The story here follows the events of a kidnapping which takes a turn, when a war veteran looks to help the helpless, while a corrupt businessman looks to complete a project which will change everything as we know it in the world. When it comes to the idea of the kidnapping side of the story, we do get a nice spin on how everything unfolds, making it truly unpredictable with what will happen next. While that is a good thing, it can mean we do meet a couple of too many characters, which doesn’t let other get flushed out enough. We are left with seeing just how dealing with inventions will see people looking for greed, while seeing a war veteran getting another shot to prove himself in combat is nice to see.
Action – The action is restricted, but it does show how the conflicts are meant to be edgy and more in the shadows which is better to watch for the tone.
Settings – The film is set in and around one city which shows how the minds in it would operate, we see how the project would be secretly locked away from the world and see how the criminals will act in the shadows of abandoned locations.
Scene of the Movie – Corey military trained scenes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like we have a few too many characters at time.
Final Thoughts – This is an action thriller that does have a lot of direction you wouldn’t normally see, it does keep us guessing despite having a couple of characters we don’t need to have.
Overall: Action film that goes down different paves.
Performances – This is a movie that does try to use the biggest names to sale the movie, Scout Taylor-Compton being the biggest name in the film, even though she is mostly just a criminal thug, she doesn’t give us a bad performance, just she isn’t really a main character. Damien Chinappi would be one of the leads in the film as the he does bring us a performance that does fit the action side of the film, where we do feel sympathy for his character. Richard Tyson will always make for a great villain and this is no different. When we look at the rest of the cast, we see solid performances across the board.
Story – The story here follows the events of a kidnapping which takes a turn, when a war veteran looks to help the helpless, while a corrupt businessman looks to complete a project which will change everything as we know it in the world. When it comes to the idea of the kidnapping side of the story, we do get a nice spin on how everything unfolds, making it truly unpredictable with what will happen next. While that is a good thing, it can mean we do meet a couple of too many characters, which doesn’t let other get flushed out enough. We are left with seeing just how dealing with inventions will see people looking for greed, while seeing a war veteran getting another shot to prove himself in combat is nice to see.
Action – The action is restricted, but it does show how the conflicts are meant to be edgy and more in the shadows which is better to watch for the tone.
Settings – The film is set in and around one city which shows how the minds in it would operate, we see how the project would be secretly locked away from the world and see how the criminals will act in the shadows of abandoned locations.
Scene of the Movie – Corey military trained scenes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like we have a few too many characters at time.
Final Thoughts – This is an action thriller that does have a lot of direction you wouldn’t normally see, it does keep us guessing despite having a couple of characters we don’t need to have.
Overall: Action film that goes down different paves.
TimeStamps - Time Recording with Ease
Productivity and Business
App
TimeStamps makes it easier to have a look at your working hours and overtime. No more guessing when...
Coach's Eye - Video Analysis
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Video doesn't lie. Get Coach's Eye today and see your performance improve immediately! ...
Escape: The Curse of the Temple
6.5
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Escape: The Curse of the Temple is a cooperative game in which players must escape (yes...) from a...
pheebs (3 KP) rated Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda in Books
Nov 23, 2017
The plot is progressive and thoroughly entertaining. (1 more)
The main character is a big fan of musical theatre, stars in Oliver (a play that I love)
Hands down the best biscuit is an oreo
Synopsis:Simon Spier is sixteen and trying to work out who he is – and what hes looking for. But when one of his emails to the very distracting blue falls into the wrong hands, things get all kinds of complicated. Because for Simon, falling for Blue is a big deal.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
<a href="http://fuzzysparrow.tumblr.com/post/101435382283/review">October 2014 Book of the Month</a>
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
It has been over twenty years since Lois Lowry’s controversial children’s story <i>The Giver</i> was published and it certainly deserves its status as an essential modern classic. Jonas has grown up in the perfect world of the Community whose survival relies on strict rules and rituals. Adults are assigned spouses and children (one boy and one girl) as they take up their role within the society. At the beginning of the book Jonas is approaching then end of his eleventh year and feeling apprehensive about the Ceremony of Twelve where he will be assigned a job for him to do for the rest of his adult life. Jonas gets selected as the Receiver of Memory – a very rare position – and begins to experience memories from humans who lived a long time ago. For Jonas this is exciting until he begins to see the flaws in his perfect world.
Dystopian literature has become popular over the past few years and it would not be surprising if it were <i>The Giver</i> that inspired these contemporary works. Lowry claims that she did not intend for The Giver to have a sinister feel about it; she was writing an adventure story and exploring the concept of the importance of memory, but it turned out to be something much more thought provoking. As the children’s novelist Margaret Mahy (<i>The Haunting</i>) pointed out, up until the publication of this novel in 1993 Lowry was best known for her funny stories about Anastasia Krupnik resulting in <i>The Giver</i> being even more shocking and unexpected.
<i>The Giver</i> highlights that attempting to produce perfection can often result in the loss of good things as well as the bad. The notion of the ideal world may seem like a wonderful proposal, but in order to achieve it humans would have to do away with free choice as in ironing out the inequalities and injustices of the present world would result in everything becoming the same for each individual.
This is a difficult concept to grasp, particularly for a child. Although intended as a children’s series, <i>The Giver</i> and its following installments are more suitable for young adults and older. The only issue with this is that the writing style was target at a younger audience meaning that the overall story is short and lacks depth. If it were to have been written for older readers then there would have been the scope for it to become a much lengthier novel.
There are a lot of mixed reviews surrounding this book although they have changed greatly since the original publication. To begin with <i>The Giver</i> was banned in some areas however the dystopian theme has become accepted in today’s society. What many people comment on now is the oversimplification of such strong ideas. Then again, as already mentioned, it needs to be emphasized that this book was aimed at children, thus the language reflects the reading skills of its target audience.
<i>The Giver</i> is a gem of a book that not only is enjoyable but also can educate the reader on the dangers of attempting a utopian society and why it is important to retain human memories – even the bad – in order that wisdom can exist. Those who have become fans of contemporary dystopian novels, for example <i>Divergent</i> by Veronica Roth or <i>Delirium</i> by Lauren Oliver, will be sure to love this series.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
It has been over twenty years since Lois Lowry’s controversial children’s story <i>The Giver</i> was published and it certainly deserves its status as an essential modern classic. Jonas has grown up in the perfect world of the Community whose survival relies on strict rules and rituals. Adults are assigned spouses and children (one boy and one girl) as they take up their role within the society. At the beginning of the book Jonas is approaching then end of his eleventh year and feeling apprehensive about the Ceremony of Twelve where he will be assigned a job for him to do for the rest of his adult life. Jonas gets selected as the Receiver of Memory – a very rare position – and begins to experience memories from humans who lived a long time ago. For Jonas this is exciting until he begins to see the flaws in his perfect world.
Dystopian literature has become popular over the past few years and it would not be surprising if it were <i>The Giver</i> that inspired these contemporary works. Lowry claims that she did not intend for The Giver to have a sinister feel about it; she was writing an adventure story and exploring the concept of the importance of memory, but it turned out to be something much more thought provoking. As the children’s novelist Margaret Mahy (<i>The Haunting</i>) pointed out, up until the publication of this novel in 1993 Lowry was best known for her funny stories about Anastasia Krupnik resulting in <i>The Giver</i> being even more shocking and unexpected.
<i>The Giver</i> highlights that attempting to produce perfection can often result in the loss of good things as well as the bad. The notion of the ideal world may seem like a wonderful proposal, but in order to achieve it humans would have to do away with free choice as in ironing out the inequalities and injustices of the present world would result in everything becoming the same for each individual.
This is a difficult concept to grasp, particularly for a child. Although intended as a children’s series, <i>The Giver</i> and its following installments are more suitable for young adults and older. The only issue with this is that the writing style was target at a younger audience meaning that the overall story is short and lacks depth. If it were to have been written for older readers then there would have been the scope for it to become a much lengthier novel.
There are a lot of mixed reviews surrounding this book although they have changed greatly since the original publication. To begin with <i>The Giver</i> was banned in some areas however the dystopian theme has become accepted in today’s society. What many people comment on now is the oversimplification of such strong ideas. Then again, as already mentioned, it needs to be emphasized that this book was aimed at children, thus the language reflects the reading skills of its target audience.
<i>The Giver</i> is a gem of a book that not only is enjoyable but also can educate the reader on the dangers of attempting a utopian society and why it is important to retain human memories – even the bad – in order that wisdom can exist. Those who have become fans of contemporary dystopian novels, for example <i>Divergent</i> by Veronica Roth or <i>Delirium</i> by Lauren Oliver, will be sure to love this series.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A stunning portrait of friendship and comedy
To this day, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are still regarded as one of the greatest comedy duos. Their acts used slapstick comedy, cartoon violence and song to delight audiences. From 1927 all the way up to 1955, they performed these acts together both on screen and on stage.
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.