Search
Guarding The Tongue ( Backbiting and Gossip ) By Imaam An-Nawawee for iPad
Lifestyle and Reference
App
All praise is for Allaah and may the peace and blessings be on His Final Messenger, his family and...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
I’m a sucker for a Prohibition-set yarn. It’s a fascinating period in history and typically yields excellent filmmaking with gritty, no-nonsense performances, gorgeous production design and hard-boiled action. It was De Palma’s The Untouchables that hooked me. Some would call it a guilty pleasure; and sure, Morricone’s score is a little over-the-top, De Niro is more caricature than character actor as Al Capone and I’m not going to argue that Connery’s Oscar was a “sympathy vote”, but it’s got everything I mentioned above in spades and for me it’ll always be the high benchmark of the Prohibition era gangster epic. Ben Affleck’s fourth turn as director has done nothing to change my position on that.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
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.