Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Miles Ahead (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve ever found yourself in a coffee shop, bookstore, or perhaps even a jazz club in the 21st century you can’t NOT have heard either the name ‘Miles Davis’, his music, or perhaps both. If you’ve been living under a rock your whole life and by some miracle you have a smartphone, computer, or a radio find a jazz station and it’s almost a sure thing you’ll here his music within minutes. The man is no myth although the man and his music are so legendary there is almost a mythical presence to him. He is one of the greats. No question. No argument.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Three Complete Novels (Psycho, Psycho II, and Psycho House) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Psycho</b>
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
Francis Picabia: Our Heads Are Round So Our Thoughts Can Change Direction
Book Watch
By rejecting consistency, Picabia powerfully asserted the artist's freedom to change Irreverent...
Art
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Girl Who Stayed in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Zoe returns to her hometown of Sullivan's Island with one goal in mind: repair her childhood home and sell it, so she never has to come back. Her parents are dead, her brother doesn't want it, and her little sister, Hannah, disappeared from the Island when Hannah was eight and Zoe was ten. At the time, Hannah's friend, Gabi, insinuated that Zoe was responsible for Hannah's disappearance and while she knows it isn't true, Zoe has always felt confused and remorseful about her behavior during the time period when Hannah vanished. Even worse, she grew up under the doubt of her parents, especially her angry father, who seemed to believe Gabi, and with whom Zoe had a rough and rocky relationship as she aged.
This was an interesting book and I confess it had the misfortune of being read during a crazy time for me of illness and work: not its fault. Zoe is a tough character to crack at first, but she's also a victim of abuse, and her slowness to reveal herself--in the book and to others--makes sense. Crosby does a good job of displaying (versus telling) how Zoe's relationship with her parents has formed her into the adult she is today. What I enjoyed is that Zoe is a complicated individual with many layers. I've read too many books lately where a character had a bad childhood or suffered some form of abuse and that seems to be a reason to make them have only one character trait, which they must act upon, with no sign of reason. Zoe is nuanced, even if she takes some time to warm up to.
There are several scenes in the book that are nearly heartbreaking as you read. For instance, when Zoe finds a projector and a bunch of film belonging to her grandfather and manages to splice together enough film to capture a few moments of her late sister as a kid. As she describes the moment, it's powerful, and you can completely picture it. In another scene, she reminisces about how her mother "helped" her fix up Zoe's bathing suit before a first date--an event that ended poorly. This moment is not only formed so clearly, but says so much about how Zoe continued to relate to her Mom. It's very well-done.
The book spends most of its time focusing on Zoe's late second coming of age story (at nearly 40), with a few characters from Sullivan's Island thrown in, but there is a subplot to Hannah's disappearance that picks up pace near the end. The very end of the story felt a little rushed (though exciting). I'm still a bit torn about the actual ending--it sort of pissed me off--but I understand Crosby's choices.
In writing this review, I'd probably push my rating up to a 3.75 stars. It's a different book, and I enjoyed Zoe. I almost wish I could encounter her again.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss - thank you! It is available for publication on 4/19/16. You can find a review this novel and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
This was an interesting book and I confess it had the misfortune of being read during a crazy time for me of illness and work: not its fault. Zoe is a tough character to crack at first, but she's also a victim of abuse, and her slowness to reveal herself--in the book and to others--makes sense. Crosby does a good job of displaying (versus telling) how Zoe's relationship with her parents has formed her into the adult she is today. What I enjoyed is that Zoe is a complicated individual with many layers. I've read too many books lately where a character had a bad childhood or suffered some form of abuse and that seems to be a reason to make them have only one character trait, which they must act upon, with no sign of reason. Zoe is nuanced, even if she takes some time to warm up to.
There are several scenes in the book that are nearly heartbreaking as you read. For instance, when Zoe finds a projector and a bunch of film belonging to her grandfather and manages to splice together enough film to capture a few moments of her late sister as a kid. As she describes the moment, it's powerful, and you can completely picture it. In another scene, she reminisces about how her mother "helped" her fix up Zoe's bathing suit before a first date--an event that ended poorly. This moment is not only formed so clearly, but says so much about how Zoe continued to relate to her Mom. It's very well-done.
The book spends most of its time focusing on Zoe's late second coming of age story (at nearly 40), with a few characters from Sullivan's Island thrown in, but there is a subplot to Hannah's disappearance that picks up pace near the end. The very end of the story felt a little rushed (though exciting). I'm still a bit torn about the actual ending--it sort of pissed me off--but I understand Crosby's choices.
In writing this review, I'd probably push my rating up to a 3.75 stars. It's a different book, and I enjoyed Zoe. I almost wish I could encounter her again.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss - thank you! It is available for publication on 4/19/16. You can find a review this novel and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Ben Howkins (7 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019
Muddled plot (1 more)
Forced ending
Alita's more mortal than angel
The basic plot of the film is: about 300 years after a large war called “The Fall” a cyborg repairer/ doctor called Dr Dyson Ido finds the dismembered but still functioning body of a young girl in the scrapheap of rubbish dumped from Zalem, the last remaining sky city from before “The Fall”. After Ido is able to connect the remains to a cyborg body he had made for his late daughter, the girl awakes with no memories of who or what she is. To help her, Ido decides to look after, treating her as if she had a new start in life, even giving her a new name, Alita, after his late daughter whose body she had. Unfortunately though whilst creating her new life in Iron City, Alita starts to remember things about her past and who she truly is, learns that some of the people who she thinks she knows aren’t quite what they seem and most worryingly starting to attract the attention of some bad people.
If I am going, to be honest, both the movie and performances are on a hit and miss scale. Rosa Salazar who is the face and performance of the leading lady is quite good. She portrays Alita’s emotional and mental journey/ life cycle throughout the film to a high standard, evolving from the naive young girl at the very start when she knows and is nothing, through her lovesick and difficult middle period (teenage years if you will) and finishing with starts to truly knowing who she is and what she must do. Christoph Waltz is like always very good as Dr Dyson Ido. The different sides he showed of his character, sometimes switching and showing multiple in a single scene, is quite impressive. These include lighter ones like the loving father figure towards Alita and the doctor who is willing to help everyone sometimes for nothing in return, to his darker side like his secret “night job” and his hatred and disdain towards Zalem and their murderous entertainment “Motorball”. I will also give an honourable mention to Ed Skrein who plays bounty hunter Zapan. Out of the multiple known names who have middle to lower importance parts he was definitely the best as his (what I would say) known style of emotionless bad guy fits perfectly to his character.
But as I said there were definite misses to these hits, biggest one being Keean Johnson who plays Alita’s first friend turned love interest Hugo. The problem with Hugo isn’t all Johnson’s performance, though that is quite flat and unengaging, but that Hugo was unfortunately terribly written and just doesn’t really have anything about him. Another miss, performance wise, was the fact that there were a few big well-known actors and actresses who they didn’t use to their potential, again due to poor writing. An example is Mahershala Ali who plays Vector, an entrepreneur linked into “Motorball”. Though he is what I would regard as a “B Level Character”, nothing is done with him to use or explore his story, which I believe could have helped a bit with the story.
Like the performances, the film itself is also hit and miss, unfortunately with the later are bigger in weight than the former. Start with the good, Visually this movie is as stunning as it is billed. Though you can tell it’s mostly CGI, Alita still looks absolutely beautiful and some of the other cyborg/ robotic characters look just as good, particularly Zapan. Also, the performances I said were good were very good.
For all the lovely visuals and good performances, the biggest problem for the movie is the script. It is incredibly muddled up, jumping from one thing to the next at such a quick rate that it is hard to follow and even sometimes see the link between scenes. The movie also, in my opinion, finishes without a true ending. It is clear it was set up for a sequel but I feel there could have been at least another 10-20 minutes more to tie it up/ tide us properly over.
Overall I was really disappointed with Alita. With the team involved, I believed it had potential to be this decade “Avatar” but instead just ended up being another mediocre futuristic action drama.
If I am going, to be honest, both the movie and performances are on a hit and miss scale. Rosa Salazar who is the face and performance of the leading lady is quite good. She portrays Alita’s emotional and mental journey/ life cycle throughout the film to a high standard, evolving from the naive young girl at the very start when she knows and is nothing, through her lovesick and difficult middle period (teenage years if you will) and finishing with starts to truly knowing who she is and what she must do. Christoph Waltz is like always very good as Dr Dyson Ido. The different sides he showed of his character, sometimes switching and showing multiple in a single scene, is quite impressive. These include lighter ones like the loving father figure towards Alita and the doctor who is willing to help everyone sometimes for nothing in return, to his darker side like his secret “night job” and his hatred and disdain towards Zalem and their murderous entertainment “Motorball”. I will also give an honourable mention to Ed Skrein who plays bounty hunter Zapan. Out of the multiple known names who have middle to lower importance parts he was definitely the best as his (what I would say) known style of emotionless bad guy fits perfectly to his character.
But as I said there were definite misses to these hits, biggest one being Keean Johnson who plays Alita’s first friend turned love interest Hugo. The problem with Hugo isn’t all Johnson’s performance, though that is quite flat and unengaging, but that Hugo was unfortunately terribly written and just doesn’t really have anything about him. Another miss, performance wise, was the fact that there were a few big well-known actors and actresses who they didn’t use to their potential, again due to poor writing. An example is Mahershala Ali who plays Vector, an entrepreneur linked into “Motorball”. Though he is what I would regard as a “B Level Character”, nothing is done with him to use or explore his story, which I believe could have helped a bit with the story.
Like the performances, the film itself is also hit and miss, unfortunately with the later are bigger in weight than the former. Start with the good, Visually this movie is as stunning as it is billed. Though you can tell it’s mostly CGI, Alita still looks absolutely beautiful and some of the other cyborg/ robotic characters look just as good, particularly Zapan. Also, the performances I said were good were very good.
For all the lovely visuals and good performances, the biggest problem for the movie is the script. It is incredibly muddled up, jumping from one thing to the next at such a quick rate that it is hard to follow and even sometimes see the link between scenes. The movie also, in my opinion, finishes without a true ending. It is clear it was set up for a sequel but I feel there could have been at least another 10-20 minutes more to tie it up/ tide us properly over.
Overall I was really disappointed with Alita. With the team involved, I believed it had potential to be this decade “Avatar” but instead just ended up being another mediocre futuristic action drama.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Hustle (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: When you have a con artist film you need to be anticipating some twist in the heroes favour. This has that and you are left to figure out how he will pull it off, what happens between is very familiar with the differences between the hero and the guy he has to complete the job for. What is not familiar is that the hero starts to support the guys he is meant to be conning, mix in a love triangle and you do get something more original. The film never tries to take its self too serious which is what makes it good, but in the end you won’t be left thinking I have to watch this again. (7/10)
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The United States vs. Billie Holiday (2021) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Spasmodic biopic anchored by an astonishing performance by Andra Day
It's the late 40's in the US. We follow the distressing story of Billie Holiday (Andra Day) through her period of fame and drug addiction, while constantly pursued by Harry Anslinger (Garrett Hedlund) of the FBI. The reason? Holiday kept repeatedly singing the song "Strange Fruit" at her concerts, seen as being incendiary in support of the emerging civil rights movement. While surrounded by exploitative men, can she escape the destructive cycle and find true love with her "soldier boy" Jimmy Fletcher (Trevante Rhodes).
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Fade Out (Morganville Vampires #7) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
Yet another good addition to the Morganville Vampires series, Fade Out is all about entertainment, but with a sinister twist. Eve wins a major part in the town's production of Tennessee Williams' A Street Car Named Desire and Claire's quirky boss, Myrnin, seems to have gained his sanity. But underneath this calm surface, rebellion is simmering while Amelie grieves, Ada-the-computer has it in for Claire, and the other goth chick in town, Kim, has less-than-honest designs for Morganville with a suspicious film project in the works.
Claire seems to have worked out a truce with her parents, which I liked since they just seem to get in the way. Her relationship with Shane is adorable and sweet, and I love their loyalty to each other even as they navigate the familiar territory of new romance. In contrast, Eve and Michael have hit a major bump in the road that I saw coming several books back - and I'm still a little annoyed that we don't get more details from Eve's perspective.
Myrnin has to be my favorite character in the series. Even as a sane individual, he is still incredibly unique - from his fashion sense, to the unexpected things he randomly spouts, to his mercurial behavior and unpredictable loyalties among the town's inhabitants. What develops with Ada's subplot in the book shows that beneath the vampire still lurks some humanity, and he obviously has many more secrets that have yet to be revealed.
Amelie grieves for the loss of Sam, and the way she randomly appears in Claire's day-to-day life during this period of stark vulnerability is equal parts mystifying and encouraging. While the downside of this is that the rebellious factions feel stronger, the upside is that the readers gets to see some of the characteristics typical only to humans show themselves in Amelie.
As for Claire herself, Shane makes an observation about her that I think sums her up quite nicely. Some people come to Morganville and disappear, but when Claire came to Morganville, she began to thrive.
Every time I pick up one of the books in this series, I simply can not stop reading until I've finished it - always the perfect blend of suspense, mystery, and supernatural elements to keep me hooked.
Claire seems to have worked out a truce with her parents, which I liked since they just seem to get in the way. Her relationship with Shane is adorable and sweet, and I love their loyalty to each other even as they navigate the familiar territory of new romance. In contrast, Eve and Michael have hit a major bump in the road that I saw coming several books back - and I'm still a little annoyed that we don't get more details from Eve's perspective.
Myrnin has to be my favorite character in the series. Even as a sane individual, he is still incredibly unique - from his fashion sense, to the unexpected things he randomly spouts, to his mercurial behavior and unpredictable loyalties among the town's inhabitants. What develops with Ada's subplot in the book shows that beneath the vampire still lurks some humanity, and he obviously has many more secrets that have yet to be revealed.
Amelie grieves for the loss of Sam, and the way she randomly appears in Claire's day-to-day life during this period of stark vulnerability is equal parts mystifying and encouraging. While the downside of this is that the rebellious factions feel stronger, the upside is that the readers gets to see some of the characteristics typical only to humans show themselves in Amelie.
As for Claire herself, Shane makes an observation about her that I think sums her up quite nicely. Some people come to Morganville and disappear, but when Claire came to Morganville, she began to thrive.
Every time I pick up one of the books in this series, I simply can not stop reading until I've finished it - always the perfect blend of suspense, mystery, and supernatural elements to keep me hooked.