Search
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated If You Could Go Anywhere in Books
Sep 12, 2019
So we meet Angie who lives in the outback in rural Australia, a mining town called Coober Pedy--famous for its opals. Her grandmother has just passed away after years of struggling with dementia and as her only living relative it's hit Angie hard. Her friend comes over and they decide to drink some of her grandfathers wine and behind one of the bottles they find a letter written by Angie's dead mum addressed to a man in Italy. Reading the letter she finds out that her dad is the man the letter is addressed to and that he never knew about her. Angie is thrilled at the idea of having family back in Italy and flies out to meet them.
The people she meets in Italy welcome her with open arms, ready to accept her into their large extended family. They're a nice bunch of people who want to hear all about her life in the desert and living in a "cave". They show her how to make Italian cuisine and she shares her own recipes with them.
Then there's Alessandro. He's related but not by blood and there's a connection between the two of them. Both want to travel; both lost parents at an early age. But Alessandro had a rough start to life and doesn't want any sort of commitment with anyone or anything.
I loved some of the secondary characters like Stefano and Cristina. They were fun; there arguments over the music that played and their nights out/nights.
I like that this is set in Rome, a city I have visited myself so I understand some of Angie's joy at seeing some of the famous sites. And a little time in Venice, too. Another city I've had the fortune of visiting.
And lastly, cover love! How cute is this cover? I love it!
The people she meets in Italy welcome her with open arms, ready to accept her into their large extended family. They're a nice bunch of people who want to hear all about her life in the desert and living in a "cave". They show her how to make Italian cuisine and she shares her own recipes with them.
Then there's Alessandro. He's related but not by blood and there's a connection between the two of them. Both want to travel; both lost parents at an early age. But Alessandro had a rough start to life and doesn't want any sort of commitment with anyone or anything.
I loved some of the secondary characters like Stefano and Cristina. They were fun; there arguments over the music that played and their nights out/nights.
I like that this is set in Rome, a city I have visited myself so I understand some of Angie's joy at seeing some of the famous sites. And a little time in Venice, too. Another city I've had the fortune of visiting.
And lastly, cover love! How cute is this cover? I love it!
Construction Simulator 2014
Games
App
Do you want to build houses and industrial buildings with heavy machines from LIEBHERR, MAN and...
Charles (Learning to Love #1)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Opposites attract in this low-angst romance filled with British snark and humour. Life should be...
Contemporary MM Romance
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Wedding Date (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The first romantic comedy of the year has arrived and sadly, it is likely to do about as much for romantics as the Black Plaque did for European Travel. The film stars Debra Messing stars as Kat Ellis, a successful career woman who is about to travel to England for the wedding of her younger sister.
Sadly for Kat, her ex is the best man at the wedding, and since he left Kat high and dry with only an engagement ring and no explanation. Desperate to get back at her ex, Kat hires a male escort named Nick (Dermot Mulrony), to pose as her boyfriend.
One would think that with a premise such as this, there would be amble opportunity for laughter, romance, and drama; sadly there is precious little of any of this in the film. Messing tries her best but there is nothing in the material for her to work with. The characters are so weak and one dimensional, that you never really connect with them nor care for their plight.
Mulrony is wasted in the film as he generally seems bored and generates zero chemistry with his co star. He is forced to drift from one scene to another without the benefit of well placed transitions or build up, making the film come across as desperately in search of a direction.
Further complicating the film was an apparent overabundance of editing as scenes concluded only to be followed by scenes that took place much later without the benefit of any transition. As if this matter was not bad enough, references to the past scene and events that were not shown to the audience are constant throughout the film.
While all this could be excused, what can’t be excused is the bizarre lack of humor and romance in the film. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the film is going, but we never get to see the how and why the characters came to this decision. Nick is a professional escort, and as such, it would stand to reason that he would have hard and fast rules about becoming involved with his clients on a serious basis. Yet, for reasons unknown, he is ready to pledge his undying love in just a couple of days to a person he has spent precious little time with, and seems to have next to zero chemistry with.
Some viewers may also take issue with the notion that a career woman feels the need to parade a man around to show her worth and value, and the fact that she had to hire one as she is seemingly incapable of getting and keeping one on her own.
Somewhere along the way, a good concept for a film went horribly wrong, as The Wedding Date is a clich filled effort that is lacking heart and warmth leaving you wanting more.
Sadly for Kat, her ex is the best man at the wedding, and since he left Kat high and dry with only an engagement ring and no explanation. Desperate to get back at her ex, Kat hires a male escort named Nick (Dermot Mulrony), to pose as her boyfriend.
One would think that with a premise such as this, there would be amble opportunity for laughter, romance, and drama; sadly there is precious little of any of this in the film. Messing tries her best but there is nothing in the material for her to work with. The characters are so weak and one dimensional, that you never really connect with them nor care for their plight.
Mulrony is wasted in the film as he generally seems bored and generates zero chemistry with his co star. He is forced to drift from one scene to another without the benefit of well placed transitions or build up, making the film come across as desperately in search of a direction.
Further complicating the film was an apparent overabundance of editing as scenes concluded only to be followed by scenes that took place much later without the benefit of any transition. As if this matter was not bad enough, references to the past scene and events that were not shown to the audience are constant throughout the film.
While all this could be excused, what can’t be excused is the bizarre lack of humor and romance in the film. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the film is going, but we never get to see the how and why the characters came to this decision. Nick is a professional escort, and as such, it would stand to reason that he would have hard and fast rules about becoming involved with his clients on a serious basis. Yet, for reasons unknown, he is ready to pledge his undying love in just a couple of days to a person he has spent precious little time with, and seems to have next to zero chemistry with.
Some viewers may also take issue with the notion that a career woman feels the need to parade a man around to show her worth and value, and the fact that she had to hire one as she is seemingly incapable of getting and keeping one on her own.
Somewhere along the way, a good concept for a film went horribly wrong, as The Wedding Date is a clich filled effort that is lacking heart and warmth leaving you wanting more.
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
May 28, 2019
This Was a Miss For Me
Lords of Chaos is the tragic story of a teenager trying to bring Black Metal to Norway. Let’s get this out of the way now: The movie is a mess. I didn’t feel enriched after watching it in any shape, form, or fashion. Instead, I left with a very bad taste in my mouth and a desire to cut on a comedy after watching something so morbidly depressing.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 2
”What are you watching?” my wife asked from the other room. “Sounds awful!” She wasn’t wrong as the beginning attempts to explain all the W’s to the backdrop of hardcore, in-your-face metal. The music isn’t the problem, but I feel like they should have chosen one or the other: Either jump right into the metal music and set the tone or narrate the backstory first. Both made for a horrible mix.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Conflict: 5
Genre: 3
Memorability: 4
Pace: 1
Show a gruesome suicide. Burn 100 churches. Stab a man in the woods. There was nothing that could be done to really get me interested in this movie. A lot of the film felt like shock value which diminished my interest in what was happening. My eyes spent more time running from what was happening than being engrossed in it. Pacing is one of the most important parts of a movie. You screw that up and it spells doom for the rest of the movie.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 3
One of the worst endings I’ve seen in movies. The worst part is you absolutely know it’s coming, but director Jonas Akerlund decides to make you sit through it anyway. After it was over, I felt like I had been skunked.
Overall: 49
There are some things that this movie did well. As you watch these characters go off the deep end, it definitely feels genuine and real. Unfortunately, for every one good thing I can name about Lords of Chaos, I can think of ten bad. This was a miss for me.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 2
”What are you watching?” my wife asked from the other room. “Sounds awful!” She wasn’t wrong as the beginning attempts to explain all the W’s to the backdrop of hardcore, in-your-face metal. The music isn’t the problem, but I feel like they should have chosen one or the other: Either jump right into the metal music and set the tone or narrate the backstory first. Both made for a horrible mix.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Conflict: 5
Genre: 3
Memorability: 4
Pace: 1
Show a gruesome suicide. Burn 100 churches. Stab a man in the woods. There was nothing that could be done to really get me interested in this movie. A lot of the film felt like shock value which diminished my interest in what was happening. My eyes spent more time running from what was happening than being engrossed in it. Pacing is one of the most important parts of a movie. You screw that up and it spells doom for the rest of the movie.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 3
One of the worst endings I’ve seen in movies. The worst part is you absolutely know it’s coming, but director Jonas Akerlund decides to make you sit through it anyway. After it was over, I felt like I had been skunked.
Overall: 49
There are some things that this movie did well. As you watch these characters go off the deep end, it definitely feels genuine and real. Unfortunately, for every one good thing I can name about Lords of Chaos, I can think of ten bad. This was a miss for me.
Alex Kapranos recommended track Lady Rachel by Kevin Ayers in Confessions of Doctor Dream and Other Stories by Kevin Ayers in Music (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deerskin (Le Daim) (2019) in Movies
Jul 15, 2021
Anarchic concept and lots of surprises (1 more)
Dujardin and Haenel act well
Killer style… but bloody bonkers.
This French movie (with subtitles) by Quentin Dupieux is a black comedy that veers towards the violently absurd. So it certainly won't be for everyone.
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).