Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Eagle Eye (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Zack (Seth Rogan), and Miri (Elizabeth Banks), are two lifelong friends with problems. Their lives in a Pittsburgh Suburb have not turned out as well as they would have hoped as they find themselves mired in low paying jobs struggling to pay the bills and have any semblance of a happy life.
With their ten year high school reunion pending on the night before Thanksgiving, Zack agrees to accompany Miri but has little enthusiasm to see the same group of people he went to school with especially when he has so little to show for his post school life.
While things do not go as hoped for either Zack or Miri at the reunion, things get even worse when their water and power is turned off upon returning home forcing them to contend with a very cold and dark Thanksgiving.
In a fit of inspiration born out of desperation Zack decides to make a Porno as a way out of their financial issues. Zack contends that most of their fellow classmates will buy it out of curiosity and if they can sell 1000 copies, their problems will be over. Despite their platonic relationship, Miri agrees to make the film with Zack, and after getting financed by one of Zack’s co-workers with money meant for a plasma television, Zack and Miri begin the process of casting and creating their film.
Of course things do not go as planned and one series of hilarious events and disasters after another arise to hamper the budding filmmakers, and add even more pressure to their pending first time with one another.
With Deadlines pending, Zack and Miri must deal with the problems surrounding the film as well as their own long dormant denied attraction to one another the two life long friends must make choices that will have lifelong ramifications.
Writer and Director Kevin Smith has created a funny film that is both familiar to his previous works yet a more mature and emotional film. Yes there is plenty of outrageous humor and very frank and explicit diologe between the characters yet there is a maturity amongst the characters. As he showed in “Clerks II), the leads in “Zack and Miri” make a porno are dealing with bigger issues than trying to have sex, they are dealing with the fragile emotions that come with opening your heart and the fears of rejection that come with it. The theme of doing what you want to do rather than what is expected of you is also a constant theme here, and it is refreshing to see Smith once again tackle such issues without being preachy or heavy handed.
Supporting Rogen and Banks are Smith staples Jason Mewes and Jeff Anderson as well as solid supporting work from Justin Long who is utterly hilarious in every scene he is in.
While some fans may want more full out humor such as Smith gave in “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”, Zack and Miri is more in tune with “Chasing Amy” as it focuses more on the relationship amongst the leads rather than wall to wall blunt humor.
No matter how many times I see Kevin Smith films, I am amazed at how well he captures the natural conversation between his characters. Yes, it is very raw but also very natural as it has a flow to it that embodies and defines the characters without ever overshadowing them. We all know of people who sit around having conversations as frank and outrageous as the characters in Smith’s films but never do the words seem forced or clichéd.
I am curious to see what future films Kevin Smith will craft as I find myself longing for the classic stable of Jersey characters like Jay and Silent Bob to return, yet understand the need he has to move forward and progress as a filmmaker.
“Zack and Miri” may not be the best work Smith has ever done, but it is very funny and deeply entertaining and shows a positive new direction for this talented director.
With their ten year high school reunion pending on the night before Thanksgiving, Zack agrees to accompany Miri but has little enthusiasm to see the same group of people he went to school with especially when he has so little to show for his post school life.
While things do not go as hoped for either Zack or Miri at the reunion, things get even worse when their water and power is turned off upon returning home forcing them to contend with a very cold and dark Thanksgiving.
In a fit of inspiration born out of desperation Zack decides to make a Porno as a way out of their financial issues. Zack contends that most of their fellow classmates will buy it out of curiosity and if they can sell 1000 copies, their problems will be over. Despite their platonic relationship, Miri agrees to make the film with Zack, and after getting financed by one of Zack’s co-workers with money meant for a plasma television, Zack and Miri begin the process of casting and creating their film.
Of course things do not go as planned and one series of hilarious events and disasters after another arise to hamper the budding filmmakers, and add even more pressure to their pending first time with one another.
With Deadlines pending, Zack and Miri must deal with the problems surrounding the film as well as their own long dormant denied attraction to one another the two life long friends must make choices that will have lifelong ramifications.
Writer and Director Kevin Smith has created a funny film that is both familiar to his previous works yet a more mature and emotional film. Yes there is plenty of outrageous humor and very frank and explicit diologe between the characters yet there is a maturity amongst the characters. As he showed in “Clerks II), the leads in “Zack and Miri” make a porno are dealing with bigger issues than trying to have sex, they are dealing with the fragile emotions that come with opening your heart and the fears of rejection that come with it. The theme of doing what you want to do rather than what is expected of you is also a constant theme here, and it is refreshing to see Smith once again tackle such issues without being preachy or heavy handed.
Supporting Rogen and Banks are Smith staples Jason Mewes and Jeff Anderson as well as solid supporting work from Justin Long who is utterly hilarious in every scene he is in.
While some fans may want more full out humor such as Smith gave in “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”, Zack and Miri is more in tune with “Chasing Amy” as it focuses more on the relationship amongst the leads rather than wall to wall blunt humor.
No matter how many times I see Kevin Smith films, I am amazed at how well he captures the natural conversation between his characters. Yes, it is very raw but also very natural as it has a flow to it that embodies and defines the characters without ever overshadowing them. We all know of people who sit around having conversations as frank and outrageous as the characters in Smith’s films but never do the words seem forced or clichéd.
I am curious to see what future films Kevin Smith will craft as I find myself longing for the classic stable of Jersey characters like Jay and Silent Bob to return, yet understand the need he has to move forward and progress as a filmmaker.
“Zack and Miri” may not be the best work Smith has ever done, but it is very funny and deeply entertaining and shows a positive new direction for this talented director.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
Great Introspection On What it Means to Be Human
Thirty years after the events of the first movie, Blade Runner 2049 follows the story of replicant K (Ryan Gosling) who unearths a secret that could rock the world to its core. I remember watching this for the first time and scoring it high 90’s. While I still think it’s a damn good movie, I feel it falls just out of Masterpiece range.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Some Darwin award winners.
Man, I personally found this one to be an exceedingly uncomfortable watch.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Attachments in Books
Nov 16, 2017
Unconventional Romance (3 more)
Read Life Issues
Movie/Book References
Friendships
Love at First...E-mail?
I've seen some low scored reviews for this book on GR and I realized it may keep some people from reading it, but here are some points I think some should consider before not giving Attachments a chance:
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated 13 Minutes in Books
Feb 13, 2018
When they pull Natasha out of the river, she's been dead for thirteen minutes. Thirteen dark, cold minutes. It's amazing the teenager even lives; in fact, it's just pure luck that a man and his dog stumble upon her and pull her from the river's icy clutches. Tasha, as she's known, has no memory of how she wound up in the river, but she knows it wasn't intentional on her part. In fact, she's pretty sure two of her closest friends, Hayley and Jenny, had something to do with it. The two seemed weird in the days leading up to the incident. The trio of beautiful, popular girls--known as "the Barbies" at school--were supposedly the best of friends. But after the accident, Tasha feels drawn to her former friend, Becca, whom she dropped in middle school. Becca isn't sure why Tasha is suddenly being so nice to her. Tasha isn't sure either. And no one is exactly sure how or why Tasha ended up in that river.
I've never read a novel by [a:Sarah Pinborough|457300|Sarah Pinborough|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1463056151p2/457300.jpg] before, and I was pretty impressed. She's a great writer, and <i>she certainly knows how to capture the voice of the teenagers within the pages of her novel</i>. I don't think I realized this book would be quite so YA, if that makes any sense. I <i>kept waiting for there to be a bit more to the story than teenage politics</i>, but it's truly sort of a <i>Pretty Little Liars</i>-type tale. That's not to say it's not well-done. It may have just been a tad bit young for me; still, <i>it's an excellent novel and would be a truly wonderful read for most teens</i>, too.
Part of the novel's brilliance comes in its format. It's told from the point of view of Becca and Tasha, but we also get excerpts from Tasha's diary; case files from the Inspector on Tasha's case; notes from Tasha's psychologist; texts between the teens; and more. <i>I enjoyed the format, and it was quite effective at building suspense and tension. </i>
Because,<i> wow, yes, the book is certainly tense and compelling.</i> You're constantly wondering how reliable our teenage narrators are and questioning everything that happens. Now, as mentioned, there's a lot of teenage drama. A LOT. <i>These teens are truly a little scary</i>, and this was yet another book that makes me a tiny bit frightened for my five-year-old daughters to grow up. My goodness. At times, I got a bit bogged down in all the teen antics, but it was still quite interesting.
Becca was definitely a bit of a kid, but I still liked her (for the most part). She was well-written, just a little young for me. Pinborough is truly amazing at getting in the head of these teenagers--capturing the pettiness, meanness, and honestly, sometimes the dumbness, of their mindset. But she also caught the brutal neediness behind some of their actions: that raw need of kids that age to fit in with their peers.
I had a decent idea how this one was going to play out pretty early on, but that didn't stop me from reading (as mentioned, I tore through this in about 24 hours). There's something oddly compelling about this book and its characters. Pinborough weaves in <i>The Crucible</i> as a backdrop--it's the school play--which is a really clever move, as there are a lot of parallels between said drama and the melodrama unfolding among Tasha, Hayley, and Jenny.
Overall, this novel really just hinges on the duality of the hatefulness and vulnerability of teenagers. It may come across as a little too YA and predictable for some adults, but I can't deny that it's well-written and crisp. It's hard to like some of the characters, but I think it would make a great book for teens (albeit it's rather freaking scary). I was leaning toward 3.5 stars before writing this review, but I think I'll do 3.75 and bump up to 4 stars here on Goodreads (that's not complicated at all, right? Perhaps fitting for this complicated and twisty novel).
I received a copy of this novel from Netgalley and the publisher (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 10/03/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
I've never read a novel by [a:Sarah Pinborough|457300|Sarah Pinborough|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1463056151p2/457300.jpg] before, and I was pretty impressed. She's a great writer, and <i>she certainly knows how to capture the voice of the teenagers within the pages of her novel</i>. I don't think I realized this book would be quite so YA, if that makes any sense. I <i>kept waiting for there to be a bit more to the story than teenage politics</i>, but it's truly sort of a <i>Pretty Little Liars</i>-type tale. That's not to say it's not well-done. It may have just been a tad bit young for me; still, <i>it's an excellent novel and would be a truly wonderful read for most teens</i>, too.
Part of the novel's brilliance comes in its format. It's told from the point of view of Becca and Tasha, but we also get excerpts from Tasha's diary; case files from the Inspector on Tasha's case; notes from Tasha's psychologist; texts between the teens; and more. <i>I enjoyed the format, and it was quite effective at building suspense and tension. </i>
Because,<i> wow, yes, the book is certainly tense and compelling.</i> You're constantly wondering how reliable our teenage narrators are and questioning everything that happens. Now, as mentioned, there's a lot of teenage drama. A LOT. <i>These teens are truly a little scary</i>, and this was yet another book that makes me a tiny bit frightened for my five-year-old daughters to grow up. My goodness. At times, I got a bit bogged down in all the teen antics, but it was still quite interesting.
Becca was definitely a bit of a kid, but I still liked her (for the most part). She was well-written, just a little young for me. Pinborough is truly amazing at getting in the head of these teenagers--capturing the pettiness, meanness, and honestly, sometimes the dumbness, of their mindset. But she also caught the brutal neediness behind some of their actions: that raw need of kids that age to fit in with their peers.
I had a decent idea how this one was going to play out pretty early on, but that didn't stop me from reading (as mentioned, I tore through this in about 24 hours). There's something oddly compelling about this book and its characters. Pinborough weaves in <i>The Crucible</i> as a backdrop--it's the school play--which is a really clever move, as there are a lot of parallels between said drama and the melodrama unfolding among Tasha, Hayley, and Jenny.
Overall, this novel really just hinges on the duality of the hatefulness and vulnerability of teenagers. It may come across as a little too YA and predictable for some adults, but I can't deny that it's well-written and crisp. It's hard to like some of the characters, but I think it would make a great book for teens (albeit it's rather freaking scary). I was leaning toward 3.5 stars before writing this review, but I think I'll do 3.75 and bump up to 4 stars here on Goodreads (that's not complicated at all, right? Perhaps fitting for this complicated and twisty novel).
I received a copy of this novel from Netgalley and the publisher (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 10/03/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Survive or Surrender.
Of all of the movie released I missed during 2016 (typically due to work commitments) this one was one near the top of my list. I’m a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen, and the setting and story to this one really appealed.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Swallow (2019) in Movies
Apr 25, 2020
Are you a faker or a maker
Swallow is a film about striving for perfection, the effects of childhood trauma/abusive relationships and the struggle of tying to achieve inner peace/happiness. While its no means a pleasant watch Swallow is both breathtakingly stunning and beautifully depressing at the same time. That and also the shocking realisation that its also completley groundeded in reality too as it deals with such unusual yet very real circumstances make it truly unique and a heartbreaking story. We begin with seeing Hunter tidying her stunningly beautiful home seeming like shes living the life most of us could only dream about, but much like this years invisible man we soon see the reality is shes trapped and a victim of a somwhat abusive relationship buy a man clearly influenced to much by his money and parents. See he's very well off but with this comes a down side. Hes arrogant, patronising, selfish and neglectful treating his beautiful wife as a mere accessory to make him look better to his friends, parents and buisness partners. To him shes just another flashy possession that should be seen and not heard, an accomplishment and when the aren't in public he ignores her, constantly puts her down, underminds her, patronizes her, takes away all her decision making and cares more about how he looks. In public he makes here feel small/useless, degrades her and embarsess her to make himself feel better as he strives for his own perfect life. Thus Hunter develops this addiction and fascination of swallowing items. Interestingly the swallowing starts off kid of fun and visually the items seduce hunter in an almost erotic and playful manner but as the film progresses it becomes a more agressive tendency where the objects change to become more visually aggressive/harmful and even call out and taunt hunter literally begging for her to take them into her mouth. At first the motive behind the swallowing seems innocent enough and a somewhat harmless way of dealing with the neglect from her husband as she still seems extreamly happy and grateful for the life she lives. But its this naivety and innocence that makes swallowing so easy for hunter as shes almost lured in and welcomed by the warm, blissfull, elegance the objects bring. Its like she feels relaxed, clam and embraced by the almost erotic, hypnotic, sensual and orgasmic sensations swallowing brings her. This is all represented by lovely (yet cold) whites and light blue colours littering the early scenes frequently, then theres a transition into warm colours as she starts to feel more satisfied (feeling like she has found happines momentarily and in her own way of achieving something/challenging herself so she feels she has value and worth). As things progress however harsher items are digested and the colours instantly turn to harsh reds symbolizing temptation, punishment, danger and lust making our perception of why she does this shift to thinking its being done as a punishment or for attention and to feel sexualy violated. For a while it seems that this is all the film has to offer but as the story unfolds constant plot twists creep up to delight and shock with the film even switching genres at times to dabble in more horror esq moments that wouldnt go a miss in a film like suspiria. I really dont want to spoil to much but past trauma plays a big part here and how the films character progression portrays what it feels like to be in this kind of harsh mental state is distressing and frequently upsetting as we learn to understand the condition and see how quick people are to dismiss it as a selfish act. See everyone has addictions and hidden secrets some far worse than others and we see how these addictions/traits hinder other characters on thier path to perfection too and also how much harder it is to reach happiness knowing you have flaws. With all its twists and turns swallow had me absolutely fixated on the screen constantly and every character became a puzzle i had to try and unlock if i wanted to figure out thier true nature and motives. I too had become addicted and Swallow is now one of my favorite movies of this year whithout question. From its stunning cinematography, its real/raw stressful and disturbing themes to its sheer beauty and innocence swallow when it endend left me trully feeling like id witnessed something rewarding and satisfying that served a true purpose with what it had to say. Yet I found my mind was still buzzing for the need to delve deeper into it looking for more to ingest and already craving to re watch it. Most people wont like this movie but only because they might be missing the point. Its about the strength and power of secrets, overcomming trauma, selfworth and the progression to finding true happiness in yourself and its absolutely Fantastic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
Jamie (131 KP) rated What To Do With A Duke in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Mild humor (1 more)
Some good discussion about marriage and women
Unstable plot (2 more)
Frustrating characters
Vulgar male lead
A misguided curse
When it comes to historical romance, I look for one of two things: one, a compelling love story with some scenes that make me blush and fan myself; or two, a light and fluffy clean romance, sometimes with a touch of humor. What I demand from all historical romances is for both the romance and the setting to be believable. I’ve started to wonder if my standards are too high. When I went into this book, with the cute cover and hints at a curse, I figured this one might fall on the fluffy side of the spectrum (the cat on the cover may have influenced this assumption). I was sadly mistaken.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.