Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
New movies this year feel like both a treat and a torture, but Denzel? Gimme!
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As a fan of the Pride and Prejudice book by Jane Austen, I thought it was all kinds of wrong when I came across the parody novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, that essentially Austen’s classic novel with elements of modern zombie fiction. Mainly because I’m not a fan of horror movies. So as we approached the theater where we were screening Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I told my husband, “I really don’t want to watch this. I hate zombies.” He just laughed. “You hate zombies, but you watch Walking Dead. Just pretend it’s an episode of Walking dead. Just set near the Victorian era.” I admit, I do watch the Walking Dead but it’s the most stressful hour of television for me, and there are commercial breaks. This movie has a running time for this move was almost 2 hrs with no commercials.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Magic Mike (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Depending on what you are looking for and what your expectations are going into it, the movie Magic Mike will either satisfy you or dissapoint you entirely.
Bad news first: If you are looking for a great plot, great storyline and phenomenal acting you will undoubtedly leave the theater disappointed.
Good news: If you are looking for a movie full of ‘good views’, some decent laughs, and men with rock-hard bodies with ripped muscles, you’ll get what you were looking for.
The movie Magic Mike, produced by Channing Tatum is loosely based on Tatum’s own experience before his acting career took off, when he spent a period of time earning a living as a male stripper. While working a roofing construction job, Mike (Tatum) meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer) and despite his young age, Mike befriends him and takes him out partying and, unbeknownst to Adam, to the strip club where Mikr works as a stripper. Mike introduces Adam to Dallas (Mathew McConaughey), the owner of the strip club, as The Kid.
.
During one of the club’s shows, one of the other strippers, “Tarzan” (Kevin Nash) passed out, and Mike pushes The Kid out on stage. It’s an awkward, unpolished performance, as one would expect from someone brand new to that particular scene, but The Kid proves to be a hit. When Adam realizes the income potential and allure of life as a stripper, he expresses interest in joining Magic Mike’s crew, and Mike and Dallas take him under their wings and teach him everything he needs to know to be successful in the business. They share tips, tricks, and outfit him with appropriate costumes. He quickly learns the dance moves and the importance of perfect timing when it comes to the pelvic thrust.
While the ‘main’ story line unfolded pretty well and the dancing and on-stage portion of the male revue club scenes were rather riveting, the attempt at bringing a romance into the story – first between Mike and Joanna (a Sociology student played by Olivia Munn) then Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) fell flat. It seemed awkward and forced, and there was no chemistry whatsoever. With a cast of stars such as McConaughey and Channing, one would expect a higher level of performance, but apparently the writer was counting on the sex appeal and dance scenes to carry the film. Instead, the audience was left with a series of awkward silences and uncomfortable, choppy dialog. Magic Mike left those in the audience that were looking for more than a two-hour male revue sadly disappointed.
We agreed that if you go wanting to see a ‘real’ movie with a ‘real’ storyline, Magic Mike rates 2 out of 5.
If you go with the expectations of ‘sex on a screen’ we rate this 4 of 5. And only 4 of 5 because we both felt uncomfortable with the ‘crotch in the face scenes’. But if you’re into that kinda thing, then by all means, 5 of 5.
Bad news first: If you are looking for a great plot, great storyline and phenomenal acting you will undoubtedly leave the theater disappointed.
Good news: If you are looking for a movie full of ‘good views’, some decent laughs, and men with rock-hard bodies with ripped muscles, you’ll get what you were looking for.
The movie Magic Mike, produced by Channing Tatum is loosely based on Tatum’s own experience before his acting career took off, when he spent a period of time earning a living as a male stripper. While working a roofing construction job, Mike (Tatum) meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer) and despite his young age, Mike befriends him and takes him out partying and, unbeknownst to Adam, to the strip club where Mikr works as a stripper. Mike introduces Adam to Dallas (Mathew McConaughey), the owner of the strip club, as The Kid.
.
During one of the club’s shows, one of the other strippers, “Tarzan” (Kevin Nash) passed out, and Mike pushes The Kid out on stage. It’s an awkward, unpolished performance, as one would expect from someone brand new to that particular scene, but The Kid proves to be a hit. When Adam realizes the income potential and allure of life as a stripper, he expresses interest in joining Magic Mike’s crew, and Mike and Dallas take him under their wings and teach him everything he needs to know to be successful in the business. They share tips, tricks, and outfit him with appropriate costumes. He quickly learns the dance moves and the importance of perfect timing when it comes to the pelvic thrust.
While the ‘main’ story line unfolded pretty well and the dancing and on-stage portion of the male revue club scenes were rather riveting, the attempt at bringing a romance into the story – first between Mike and Joanna (a Sociology student played by Olivia Munn) then Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) fell flat. It seemed awkward and forced, and there was no chemistry whatsoever. With a cast of stars such as McConaughey and Channing, one would expect a higher level of performance, but apparently the writer was counting on the sex appeal and dance scenes to carry the film. Instead, the audience was left with a series of awkward silences and uncomfortable, choppy dialog. Magic Mike left those in the audience that were looking for more than a two-hour male revue sadly disappointed.
We agreed that if you go wanting to see a ‘real’ movie with a ‘real’ storyline, Magic Mike rates 2 out of 5.
If you go with the expectations of ‘sex on a screen’ we rate this 4 of 5. And only 4 of 5 because we both felt uncomfortable with the ‘crotch in the face scenes’. But if you’re into that kinda thing, then by all means, 5 of 5.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pieces of a Woman (2020) in Movies
Dec 29, 2020
Vanessa Kirby (1 more)
The birth scene
Pieces of a Woman stars Vanessa Kirby and Shia LaBeouf as Martha and Sean, a married couple preparing for the imminent arrival of their first child. But a heartbreaking home birth leaves Martha struggling with grief and becoming increasingly isolated from Sean and her family.
If you've heard anything about Pieces of a Woman recently, it will no doubt be in relation to the home birth scene. Coming right at the start of the movie, and following a brief introduction to our two parents to be, the birth is shot in a single 22 minute take, from the point of Martha's waters breaking in the kitchen, to the arrival of the midwife and the eventual birth of the baby. As with any childbirth, there's a lot going on, a lot of emotions as the drama moves between the various rooms of the house. And everyone involved is outstanding, particularly Vanessa Kirby who is completely convincing. With the impressive, extended intro over, we cut to black and the title of the movie appears on screen. We then move onto the aftermath.
At first, we don't know exactly what went wrong with the birth and Martha and Sean do not have all of the answers either, which is essentially where a lot of the grief and tension arise from. Martha returns to work, to the shock of her co-workers, and it's clear that both her and Sean are very quickly beginning to drift apart, dealing with their grief in very different ways. Sean resorts to drinking, sleeping with Martha's cousin and having emotional outbursts, while Martha remains quietly detached from everyone and everything, and even meets with a local university to discuss donating their baby's body to medical science. Dirty plates stack up in the kitchen, house plants become limp from lack of water and attention.
We also discover that, in among all of the grief, everyone seems determined that the midwife who delivered their baby be blamed, prosecuted and sent to jail for five years, due to negligence and manslaughter. This is something which makes absolutely no sense when you first learn of it and even less sense when we finally arrive in the courtroom towards the end.
As we limp from month to month, the writing becomes worse and the film becomes increasingly frustrating and baffling. There's an impressive supporting cast of friends and family, all delivering their melodramatic monologues with flair, but the writing holds them back and prevents the movie from delivering any of the much needed emotional impact. At times, conversations appear to be badly improvised and just as it feels like we're about to get something of significance out of a scene or character, we cut to a different setting or later period in time, and all momentum is lost.
A bold, impressive 30 minute opening and a performance from Vanessa Kirby which continues to highlight just how talented she is. But apart from that, Pieces of a Woman just feels flat.
If you've heard anything about Pieces of a Woman recently, it will no doubt be in relation to the home birth scene. Coming right at the start of the movie, and following a brief introduction to our two parents to be, the birth is shot in a single 22 minute take, from the point of Martha's waters breaking in the kitchen, to the arrival of the midwife and the eventual birth of the baby. As with any childbirth, there's a lot going on, a lot of emotions as the drama moves between the various rooms of the house. And everyone involved is outstanding, particularly Vanessa Kirby who is completely convincing. With the impressive, extended intro over, we cut to black and the title of the movie appears on screen. We then move onto the aftermath.
At first, we don't know exactly what went wrong with the birth and Martha and Sean do not have all of the answers either, which is essentially where a lot of the grief and tension arise from. Martha returns to work, to the shock of her co-workers, and it's clear that both her and Sean are very quickly beginning to drift apart, dealing with their grief in very different ways. Sean resorts to drinking, sleeping with Martha's cousin and having emotional outbursts, while Martha remains quietly detached from everyone and everything, and even meets with a local university to discuss donating their baby's body to medical science. Dirty plates stack up in the kitchen, house plants become limp from lack of water and attention.
We also discover that, in among all of the grief, everyone seems determined that the midwife who delivered their baby be blamed, prosecuted and sent to jail for five years, due to negligence and manslaughter. This is something which makes absolutely no sense when you first learn of it and even less sense when we finally arrive in the courtroom towards the end.
As we limp from month to month, the writing becomes worse and the film becomes increasingly frustrating and baffling. There's an impressive supporting cast of friends and family, all delivering their melodramatic monologues with flair, but the writing holds them back and prevents the movie from delivering any of the much needed emotional impact. At times, conversations appear to be badly improvised and just as it feels like we're about to get something of significance out of a scene or character, we cut to a different setting or later period in time, and all momentum is lost.
A bold, impressive 30 minute opening and a performance from Vanessa Kirby which continues to highlight just how talented she is. But apart from that, Pieces of a Woman just feels flat.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Jane Steele in Books
May 24, 2017
Classic Retelling
This eBook was provided by the author in exchange for an honest review
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Dangerous Method (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Dangerous Method starts as Sabine Spielrein (Knightley) is to an asylum where she is treated by Carl Jung (Fassbender) for her irrational reaction to any stimulation. In the search for answers Carl turns to Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) who has been an expert in the sexual disorders people are meant to have.
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 2, 2021 (Updated Jun 3, 2021)
The Acting- great performances by both Emma Stone and Emma Thompson (2 more)
The costume designs and wardrobe were amazing to see
The soundtrack was phenomenal - great music
Original cartoon Cruella vs this Cruella (1 more)
The pacing was sparratic and movie ran a little too long
Part Devil Wears Prada, Part The Joker, Surprisingly Splendid
https://youtu.be/Ja_Cl-9IKNI
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Plain Bad Heroines in Books
Dec 17, 2020
Plain Bad Heroines was one of my most anticipated reads of the year. I am a sucker for a lesbian tale. Add in a Gothic New England boarding school for girls? Sold.
The story centers around two time periods. The first, 1902, at the Brookhants School for Girls, run by Libbie Brookhants. A book by a young writer, Mary MacLane has come out--one that's incredibly scandalous for the times. Two Brookhants girls, Flo and Clara, are obsessed with it and establish The Plain Bad Heroine Society. The two are in love, meeting in secret--until they are attacked by yellow jackets at their hiding spot, a copy of the book found with them. A few years later the school closes, but not until after more scandal and death. Now, our second period, over a hundred years later, where Merritt Emmons, a young writer, publishes a book about Flo and Clara's story. It inspires a horror film starring Harper Harper, a famous lesbian actress. Harper will be playing Flo and B-list actress Audrey Wells, Clara. Filming on-site at the abandoned Brookhants site, the three women converge. But soon, weird things start happening, and the curse of Brookhants seems back to haunt the set--and our three modern-day heroines.
This book is absolutely enthralling at times. I flew through these 619 pages, that's for sure. My notes state "very lesbian," which is, of course, a major plus for me. Believe me, we don't get a lot of books starring ourselves. And you know, where we are killed off by swarms of yellow jackets. I honestly found both storylines compelling. It's hard not to fall a bit in love with Harper Harper, the charismatic celebrity (out!) lesbian. And 1902 isn't just about Clara and Flo, but Libbie Brookhants and her life trying to run a cursed school in the early 1900s. Honestly, the pages really flew by most of the time. Though, there are certainly moments where I felt some of the story could have been cut.
And yes, the narrative style is different, though it really adds to the uniqueness of the book. It's basically told by an omnipresent narrator, talking directly to the reader. There are footnotes, often humorous ones, and the end result is something you don't often find. For the most part, I felt like Danforth pulled it off, too. I do think Libbie was a little more fully developed than Merritt, Harper, and Audrey, but that also may have been because that trio could come across as a bit spoiled at times.
Probably my two biggest issues with this book (regretfully): for a Gothic horror novel, it's not really that scary. There are a few creepy and eerie moments, especially in the beginning, but it never really builds up to that terrifying moment that you're expecting. And, somewhat related, the ending. We read and stick with our various tales for the entire time and then... poof! Everything just fizzles out. I was so bummed. The ending was such a disappointment after all I'd read and kept this from being a full-fledged 4 or 4.5-star read. I couldn't believe it after what we'd been through. It was like even the author was tired.
So, overall, this is an original and fascinating read. I'm certainly still advising you to read it (especially if you're queer or enjoy reading queer fiction). Just be prepared that the ending may not have that big scary moment you're expecting. 3.5 stars.
The story centers around two time periods. The first, 1902, at the Brookhants School for Girls, run by Libbie Brookhants. A book by a young writer, Mary MacLane has come out--one that's incredibly scandalous for the times. Two Brookhants girls, Flo and Clara, are obsessed with it and establish The Plain Bad Heroine Society. The two are in love, meeting in secret--until they are attacked by yellow jackets at their hiding spot, a copy of the book found with them. A few years later the school closes, but not until after more scandal and death. Now, our second period, over a hundred years later, where Merritt Emmons, a young writer, publishes a book about Flo and Clara's story. It inspires a horror film starring Harper Harper, a famous lesbian actress. Harper will be playing Flo and B-list actress Audrey Wells, Clara. Filming on-site at the abandoned Brookhants site, the three women converge. But soon, weird things start happening, and the curse of Brookhants seems back to haunt the set--and our three modern-day heroines.
This book is absolutely enthralling at times. I flew through these 619 pages, that's for sure. My notes state "very lesbian," which is, of course, a major plus for me. Believe me, we don't get a lot of books starring ourselves. And you know, where we are killed off by swarms of yellow jackets. I honestly found both storylines compelling. It's hard not to fall a bit in love with Harper Harper, the charismatic celebrity (out!) lesbian. And 1902 isn't just about Clara and Flo, but Libbie Brookhants and her life trying to run a cursed school in the early 1900s. Honestly, the pages really flew by most of the time. Though, there are certainly moments where I felt some of the story could have been cut.
And yes, the narrative style is different, though it really adds to the uniqueness of the book. It's basically told by an omnipresent narrator, talking directly to the reader. There are footnotes, often humorous ones, and the end result is something you don't often find. For the most part, I felt like Danforth pulled it off, too. I do think Libbie was a little more fully developed than Merritt, Harper, and Audrey, but that also may have been because that trio could come across as a bit spoiled at times.
Probably my two biggest issues with this book (regretfully): for a Gothic horror novel, it's not really that scary. There are a few creepy and eerie moments, especially in the beginning, but it never really builds up to that terrifying moment that you're expecting. And, somewhat related, the ending. We read and stick with our various tales for the entire time and then... poof! Everything just fizzles out. I was so bummed. The ending was such a disappointment after all I'd read and kept this from being a full-fledged 4 or 4.5-star read. I couldn't believe it after what we'd been through. It was like even the author was tired.
So, overall, this is an original and fascinating read. I'm certainly still advising you to read it (especially if you're queer or enjoy reading queer fiction). Just be prepared that the ending may not have that big scary moment you're expecting. 3.5 stars.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.