Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lawless (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Prohibition means profit to the bootlegging Bondurant brothers, until a new deputy appears wanting a cut of the action. When the family, led by oldest brother Forrest (Tom Hardy), refuses, it ignites a pattern of violent lawless retribution between the corrupt local authorities and the moonshine-selling brothers.
While adapted from the pages of a successful book, the plot of “Lawless” portrays a familiar story. A young romance slated against the challenges of a family who is literally and metaphorically, sticking to their guns. The brilliance of the film exists in the vivid set work, understated characterization, and graphic portrayals of unbridled yet historically accurate punishments.
There are bullet holes everywhere in this wild land of violence. The depictions of torture, while not the most graphically intensive in cinema, are characterized by psychological malice. The result is a film that manages to entirely pull the viewer into a different, much less civilized, time.
Led and narrated by seasoned actor, Shia LaBeouf, as the youngest brother, Jack Bondurant, the role is hardly a challenge. Yet his performances only stands out when supported by other cast members, such as the gangster Floyd Banner, played by Gary Oldman. And while LaBeouf’s performance is not a great as it could be, it shines next to his lackluster costar, Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix the forbidden preacher’s daughter and object of young Jack’s eye.
The best performance in the film is not the lead, but that of his brother Forrest who dispenses well-timed wisdom or humor even in direst situations. Further helping in the films success are the supporting characters; the third Bondurant brother, Howard (Jason Clarke), mechanically gifted family friend, Cricket Pate (Dane DeHaan), and city wise beauty Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain).
While not as impressive as expected, the slow but steady story and complex visceral nature of “Lawless”, make it a film that is worth the price of a ticket, for anyone who can make it through the squeamish bits.
While adapted from the pages of a successful book, the plot of “Lawless” portrays a familiar story. A young romance slated against the challenges of a family who is literally and metaphorically, sticking to their guns. The brilliance of the film exists in the vivid set work, understated characterization, and graphic portrayals of unbridled yet historically accurate punishments.
There are bullet holes everywhere in this wild land of violence. The depictions of torture, while not the most graphically intensive in cinema, are characterized by psychological malice. The result is a film that manages to entirely pull the viewer into a different, much less civilized, time.
Led and narrated by seasoned actor, Shia LaBeouf, as the youngest brother, Jack Bondurant, the role is hardly a challenge. Yet his performances only stands out when supported by other cast members, such as the gangster Floyd Banner, played by Gary Oldman. And while LaBeouf’s performance is not a great as it could be, it shines next to his lackluster costar, Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix the forbidden preacher’s daughter and object of young Jack’s eye.
The best performance in the film is not the lead, but that of his brother Forrest who dispenses well-timed wisdom or humor even in direst situations. Further helping in the films success are the supporting characters; the third Bondurant brother, Howard (Jason Clarke), mechanically gifted family friend, Cricket Pate (Dane DeHaan), and city wise beauty Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain).
While not as impressive as expected, the slow but steady story and complex visceral nature of “Lawless”, make it a film that is worth the price of a ticket, for anyone who can make it through the squeamish bits.
Big Bosses: A Working Girl's Memoir of Jazz Age America
Book
Sharp, resourceful, and with a style all her own, Althea Altemus embodied the spirit of the...
The Jewish Law Annual: Volume 18
Book
Volume 18 of The Jewish Law Annual contains six comprehensive articles on various aspects of Jewish...
Fundamental Labour Rights in China - Legal Implementation and Cultural Logic: 2016
Ulla Liukkunen and Yifeng Chen
Book
This volume gathers together chapters that address the theme of implementing fundamental labour...
KORG iELECTRIBE for iPad
Music and Entertainment
App
Korg’s ELECTRIBE·R has been coveted by dance musicians for ten years running. Today, this...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Public Enemy (1931) in Movies
Jul 30, 2020
Boring
The story of the rise and fall of prohibition-era Tom Powers. The Public Enemy currently sits at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. I was excited to dive in to this movie, but I started drowning as soon as I hit the first ten minutes. And, no, it didn’t get better.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 4
The beginning is extremely slow. It was very hard for me to get engaged or even stay that way. I got out of the first ten minutes thinking, “If this is any indication of how the rest of the movie is going to be, count me out.”
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 5
For a gangster movie, I was really hoping for a lot more action. The gun fights aren’t bad, but they happen so few and far between it makes the rest of the movie really boring. I never felt any stakes at any point with any of the characters either so the conflict is mediocre by comparison.
Entertainment Value: 5
I enjoyed watching a part of cinematic history. I respected that aspect at least. Overall, though, I was mildly entertained at best. I felt there were more lulls than high spots.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 4
I was bored out of my mind for most of the movie. Again, I expected more from a gangster movie. Too much talking, way too much exposition. The movie drags like a sloth.
Plot: 8
The story is solid. The execution was weak. There are a number of different ways this story could have been approached without there being so much repeated dialogue. Tom Powers has an interesting story that happened to get lost in translation with all of this.
Resolution: 2
I won’t spoil the ending, but it did nothing for the main character or his story overall. I felt we reached a climax where I had no sympathy for Tom because they had done little to nothing to that point to make me give a shit about him. Considering how bad the beginning was already, this was absolutely horrible.
Overall: 53Do I think The Public Enemy is a bad movie? Clearly, but I will say it’s not without a handful of shining moments. The camerawork is phenomenal particularly during gun fights. However, because I could never get to a point where I rooted for the main character, it made the movie as a whole hard to enjoy for me.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 4
The beginning is extremely slow. It was very hard for me to get engaged or even stay that way. I got out of the first ten minutes thinking, “If this is any indication of how the rest of the movie is going to be, count me out.”
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 5
For a gangster movie, I was really hoping for a lot more action. The gun fights aren’t bad, but they happen so few and far between it makes the rest of the movie really boring. I never felt any stakes at any point with any of the characters either so the conflict is mediocre by comparison.
Entertainment Value: 5
I enjoyed watching a part of cinematic history. I respected that aspect at least. Overall, though, I was mildly entertained at best. I felt there were more lulls than high spots.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 4
I was bored out of my mind for most of the movie. Again, I expected more from a gangster movie. Too much talking, way too much exposition. The movie drags like a sloth.
Plot: 8
The story is solid. The execution was weak. There are a number of different ways this story could have been approached without there being so much repeated dialogue. Tom Powers has an interesting story that happened to get lost in translation with all of this.
Resolution: 2
I won’t spoil the ending, but it did nothing for the main character or his story overall. I felt we reached a climax where I had no sympathy for Tom because they had done little to nothing to that point to make me give a shit about him. Considering how bad the beginning was already, this was absolutely horrible.
Overall: 53Do I think The Public Enemy is a bad movie? Clearly, but I will say it’s not without a handful of shining moments. The camerawork is phenomenal particularly during gun fights. However, because I could never get to a point where I rooted for the main character, it made the movie as a whole hard to enjoy for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Water for Elephants (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The future is bright with promise for Jacob, a Cornell veterinary sciences student, ready to graduate and follow in his father’s footsteps. But after a series of unfortunate events, Jacob finds himself a college dropout, homeless and penniless. He sets out to find work and stows away on a passing train which turns out to be the Benzini Brothers Circus train.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Widows in Books
Jun 5, 2019
The Widows by Jess Montgomery is inspired by the true story of Ohio’s first female sheriff. The plot delves into how two women fought greed and violence while overcoming the loss of a loved one.
The author noted, “This is a darker and deeper style of writing, much more than my other stories. For example, I examine the Pinkerton men and the violence they used. I read multiple books that talked about how these men would shoot up the striking camps. I put in this book quote by one of the Pinkerton men, ‘A real war, and then, rule of law won’t matter. Those miners who resist, why, we’ll put ‘em down like rabid dogs.’”
The protagonists Lily and Marvena are based on the real-life historical figures of Maude Collins, the first female sheriff in Ohio, and Mother Jones, the famous activist and labor organizer. Sheriff Daniel Ross, the husband of Lily is murdered and no one knows by whom. Those powerful in the town want to pin it on a coal miner, Marvena’s brother. She has something in common with Lily since she also lost her husband, but to a coal mining accident. Because the mine owners think she will be easy to control, Lily is appointed sheriff pending the next election. But having a mind of her own and a sense of justice she partners with Marvena to find the elusive murderer and Marvena’s missing daughter.
“I wrote both Lily and Marvena as tough. Lily is sensitive but is also a protector who wants to support her community. She keeps her emotions close to her heart. Marvena is fierce and persistent, but also has a tender streak. Although both women were wary of each other at first, they have a common goal to find out what happened. They end up with a strong friendship and recognize that each is balancing their own demons.”
Readers might be curious as to what is real and what is fiction. Montgomery commented, “In real life Collins had five children, and the person who killed her husband was known. I decided it would be interesting to have Lily take the sheriff position to find out who killed her husband. The similarity is that both women lost their husbands in the line of duty, both were appointed sheriff, and both were elected. The differences: Lily is eight years younger than Maude during that time period and she had only had two children.”
Historical facts are intertwined in this novel that also has strong female characters and an intriguing mystery. Readers get a glimpse into the 1920s-coal mining town in Appalachian Ohio as the author examines women’s rights, prohibition, and the life of a coal miner.
The author noted, “This is a darker and deeper style of writing, much more than my other stories. For example, I examine the Pinkerton men and the violence they used. I read multiple books that talked about how these men would shoot up the striking camps. I put in this book quote by one of the Pinkerton men, ‘A real war, and then, rule of law won’t matter. Those miners who resist, why, we’ll put ‘em down like rabid dogs.’”
The protagonists Lily and Marvena are based on the real-life historical figures of Maude Collins, the first female sheriff in Ohio, and Mother Jones, the famous activist and labor organizer. Sheriff Daniel Ross, the husband of Lily is murdered and no one knows by whom. Those powerful in the town want to pin it on a coal miner, Marvena’s brother. She has something in common with Lily since she also lost her husband, but to a coal mining accident. Because the mine owners think she will be easy to control, Lily is appointed sheriff pending the next election. But having a mind of her own and a sense of justice she partners with Marvena to find the elusive murderer and Marvena’s missing daughter.
“I wrote both Lily and Marvena as tough. Lily is sensitive but is also a protector who wants to support her community. She keeps her emotions close to her heart. Marvena is fierce and persistent, but also has a tender streak. Although both women were wary of each other at first, they have a common goal to find out what happened. They end up with a strong friendship and recognize that each is balancing their own demons.”
Readers might be curious as to what is real and what is fiction. Montgomery commented, “In real life Collins had five children, and the person who killed her husband was known. I decided it would be interesting to have Lily take the sheriff position to find out who killed her husband. The similarity is that both women lost their husbands in the line of duty, both were appointed sheriff, and both were elected. The differences: Lily is eight years younger than Maude during that time period and she had only had two children.”
Historical facts are intertwined in this novel that also has strong female characters and an intriguing mystery. Readers get a glimpse into the 1920s-coal mining town in Appalachian Ohio as the author examines women’s rights, prohibition, and the life of a coal miner.
The United States of Beer: A Regional History of the All-American Drink
Book
From the author of "the definitive history of bourbon" (Sacramento Bee) comes the epic true tale of...
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Bootlegger in Books
Nov 11, 2019
The Bootlegger is the latest in the series of stories about the detective Isaac Bell from Cussler and Bell collaborator Justin Scott.
Time has moved on for Bell; it is now the early 1920s prohibition is in force and the loss of lives during the First World War has hit the Van Dorn detective agency hard. Faced with routine lawbreaking to smuggle and sell alcohol on the East Coast, and with lucrative government contracts being lost to new federal agencies, the struggle against crime has never been harder. And when Bell has to take over the role of head of the agency he faces a tough job.
Meanwhile the recent war in Europe has spread communist revolutionaries across the world, trying to destablise governments and bring about the fall of capitalism, following the example of the Russian Revolution. One resourceful operative sees the possibilities of bootlegging to finance his activities against America, but his masters are not so keen on the idea of making vast amounts of money, regardless of the use it is to be put to. But his fatal mistake is attracting the attention of the Van Dorns, who still stick by their motto - We Never Give Up. Ever.
You pretty much get what you expect with this book, more of the same from the previous Isaac Bell books. Personally I enjoy them, the insight into American early 20th century history is always a fantastic backdrop. Scott's seeming obsession with train timetables is kept to a small section here regarding moving a cargo from one place to another. There is still the full selection of large engined transport - fast cars, fast planes and in this one fast boats. There are exciting chases and shootouts, plots and subplots, ruthless villains and gangsters aplenty and the real motives of the villain do not become clear until the final showdown.
It is a shame that we know the identity of the villain more or less right from the start rather than the Van Dorns having to piece the clues together to unmask him, as in the previous novels. Although in this case it would have been hard to explain the conflict between his communist aims and capitalist means of obtaining them, which is the real engine at the heart of the plot.
Unlike Columbo Bell is not sure who his man is for quite a way through the book until realisation dawns about who he must be looking for. But I felt that he suddenly went from not knowing the actual identity of the villain to seeing through all his subterfuge far too quickly. There didn't seem to be a Columbo 'Just one more thing' moment where the vital clue or clever insight threw everything wide open. But perhaps it was time for the story to cut to the chase - and it certainly does that to a satisfying (although possibly not great) finale.
Overall I enjoyed the book, the pace was good and the set pieces very well written. However it was never going to challenge the reader in any real way. But then it's an escapist adventure story, why should it?
Time has moved on for Bell; it is now the early 1920s prohibition is in force and the loss of lives during the First World War has hit the Van Dorn detective agency hard. Faced with routine lawbreaking to smuggle and sell alcohol on the East Coast, and with lucrative government contracts being lost to new federal agencies, the struggle against crime has never been harder. And when Bell has to take over the role of head of the agency he faces a tough job.
Meanwhile the recent war in Europe has spread communist revolutionaries across the world, trying to destablise governments and bring about the fall of capitalism, following the example of the Russian Revolution. One resourceful operative sees the possibilities of bootlegging to finance his activities against America, but his masters are not so keen on the idea of making vast amounts of money, regardless of the use it is to be put to. But his fatal mistake is attracting the attention of the Van Dorns, who still stick by their motto - We Never Give Up. Ever.
You pretty much get what you expect with this book, more of the same from the previous Isaac Bell books. Personally I enjoy them, the insight into American early 20th century history is always a fantastic backdrop. Scott's seeming obsession with train timetables is kept to a small section here regarding moving a cargo from one place to another. There is still the full selection of large engined transport - fast cars, fast planes and in this one fast boats. There are exciting chases and shootouts, plots and subplots, ruthless villains and gangsters aplenty and the real motives of the villain do not become clear until the final showdown.
It is a shame that we know the identity of the villain more or less right from the start rather than the Van Dorns having to piece the clues together to unmask him, as in the previous novels. Although in this case it would have been hard to explain the conflict between his communist aims and capitalist means of obtaining them, which is the real engine at the heart of the plot.
Unlike Columbo Bell is not sure who his man is for quite a way through the book until realisation dawns about who he must be looking for. But I felt that he suddenly went from not knowing the actual identity of the villain to seeing through all his subterfuge far too quickly. There didn't seem to be a Columbo 'Just one more thing' moment where the vital clue or clever insight threw everything wide open. But perhaps it was time for the story to cut to the chase - and it certainly does that to a satisfying (although possibly not great) finale.
Overall I enjoyed the book, the pace was good and the set pieces very well written. However it was never going to challenge the reader in any real way. But then it's an escapist adventure story, why should it?