Search
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Blind in Books
Jun 6, 2019
^^ When Sam James, a highly regarded psychologist at a notorious psychological institute, meets disturbed patient Richard, their lives take an unexpected turn as the lines between sane and sanity blur between them.
^^ As a psychological thriller this story’s different. I’m not sure ANY book will beat ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, (which this one was compared to), but it’s still a terrific read in many ways.
^^ For a psychologist who is supposed to have her head screwed on right helping patients with their mental health problems, she has a hell of a lot of her own issues to deal with. Sam’s in an unhealthy, abusive relationship, had an unpleasant upbringing and is on the verge of becoming a full-blown alcoholic. On top of all that, she’s overloaded with cases, as all the staff are, underpaid and at risk of losing her job.
^^ Hang on! This sounds very much like the kind of things real healthcare professionals deal with! Especially when it comes to lack of funding, high staff turnover and a never-ending influx of new patients all suffering and needing help. (Can you tell I once worked in a similar healthcare environment?) It’s no wonder we can watch Sam’s health and mental stability decline before our very eyes. Not only that, she digs herself deeper into trouble making awful decisions, putting both herself and her patients at risk.
^^ What niggled me was I guessed what was going to happen quite early on. Is this only me? Or maybe, since I worked in a similar place, I saw the signs sooner? Who knows. Despite this, I still enjoyed the read, but found myself getting a little frustrated towards the end when neither Sam, nor her friend and coworker, David, could see what was happening. I guess you could say it really was ‘The blind leading the blind’.
^^ It’s a pity guessing what was about to happen, for ages, spoilt the shock ending of the last two sentences, which finally gave the game away to anyone who hadn’t already guessed. But hey, ho!
^^ I found this started off, slow, albeit in a curious way, like watching a candle burning at both ends. Then it hit the ground running midway, and by the last third I was staying up far too late at night wanting to read ‘just one more page’. Watching Sam’s life and sanity unravelling, was strangely intriguing.
Overall: For those with an interest in stories which openly talk about mental health issues, I think you’ll really enjoy this. The author shows a deep understanding of the healthcare industry and it’s clear she knows her stuff. She should do. A.F. Brady is a New York State Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Brown University and two Masters degrees in Psychological Counseling from Columbia University. That’s why!
^^ As a psychological thriller this story’s different. I’m not sure ANY book will beat ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, (which this one was compared to), but it’s still a terrific read in many ways.
^^ For a psychologist who is supposed to have her head screwed on right helping patients with their mental health problems, she has a hell of a lot of her own issues to deal with. Sam’s in an unhealthy, abusive relationship, had an unpleasant upbringing and is on the verge of becoming a full-blown alcoholic. On top of all that, she’s overloaded with cases, as all the staff are, underpaid and at risk of losing her job.
^^ Hang on! This sounds very much like the kind of things real healthcare professionals deal with! Especially when it comes to lack of funding, high staff turnover and a never-ending influx of new patients all suffering and needing help. (Can you tell I once worked in a similar healthcare environment?) It’s no wonder we can watch Sam’s health and mental stability decline before our very eyes. Not only that, she digs herself deeper into trouble making awful decisions, putting both herself and her patients at risk.
^^ What niggled me was I guessed what was going to happen quite early on. Is this only me? Or maybe, since I worked in a similar place, I saw the signs sooner? Who knows. Despite this, I still enjoyed the read, but found myself getting a little frustrated towards the end when neither Sam, nor her friend and coworker, David, could see what was happening. I guess you could say it really was ‘The blind leading the blind’.
^^ It’s a pity guessing what was about to happen, for ages, spoilt the shock ending of the last two sentences, which finally gave the game away to anyone who hadn’t already guessed. But hey, ho!
^^ I found this started off, slow, albeit in a curious way, like watching a candle burning at both ends. Then it hit the ground running midway, and by the last third I was staying up far too late at night wanting to read ‘just one more page’. Watching Sam’s life and sanity unravelling, was strangely intriguing.
Overall: For those with an interest in stories which openly talk about mental health issues, I think you’ll really enjoy this. The author shows a deep understanding of the healthcare industry and it’s clear she knows her stuff. She should do. A.F. Brady is a New York State Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Brown University and two Masters degrees in Psychological Counseling from Columbia University. That’s why!
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated 3 From Hell (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Some things are better left alone.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm gonna go on record and say this first...
The movie business lost one of the greatest talents it had ever seen when Sid Haig passed away. I just wanted to say thank you to him for, not only the horror nemories, but for all the amazing characters he played over the past 60 years. Now, let the final curtain close on a phenomenal career.
Okay, now that thats over, lets review this shit show.
Rob fucking Zombie... Have I got a bone to pick with you.
Have you ever heard the saying "he went to the well too many times,"?
Such as the case woth this final installment of the Firefly films.
There was no chemisty between Bill Moseley and Richard Brake... Maybe a little... It flashed through here and there, but it never came to pass.
Sherri Moon Zombie floats along as a calmer more....medicated Baby. But she just doesnt seem to be in to it like she was previously.
Before people get on me about Zombie, I am a fan. I love his music, movies and artwork. I have always been oneof his biggest supporters. When he "destroyed" Halloween. I was there, sticking up for him until my ears bled. When people said Lords of Salem was a shitty art house movie... I was there... Holding my banner high saying "Everyone makes an art flick once in a while... Hell, Argento made a career of it. When 31 came a long... I painted my face white and punched myself til i bled out my nose and mouth... Metaphorically of course... Im not certifiable...
My point is I have stuck up for R0b Zombie for most of his directing and writing lifetime... But I can no longer do so.
This movie fell a part not too long after it started. From Otis walking the ramps of courthouses and jails spouting off lime Manson... Too Baby appearing to be more off her rocker than usual, reminding me of Aileen Wournos...
Seeing Captain Spaulding for the brief few minutes made the film worth it for me. Listening to Baby and Otis talk about him in the 2nd act nearly brought the waterfalls from the eyes... But i refrained.
Here we have a movie that could've been something special had it been made 10 years ago.
I am saddened not only by the passing of Mr. Haig, but that this movie was a let down... It had its moments of over the top gore and killer dialogue. And it has a scene that will forever be engrained in my brain. But I just can't give it apassing grade.
Never fear Mr. Zombie, I still have your back... Abd I always will. But this time I'm standing in front of you... Telling you, honestly, I didn't like it.
The movie business lost one of the greatest talents it had ever seen when Sid Haig passed away. I just wanted to say thank you to him for, not only the horror nemories, but for all the amazing characters he played over the past 60 years. Now, let the final curtain close on a phenomenal career.
Okay, now that thats over, lets review this shit show.
Rob fucking Zombie... Have I got a bone to pick with you.
Have you ever heard the saying "he went to the well too many times,"?
Such as the case woth this final installment of the Firefly films.
There was no chemisty between Bill Moseley and Richard Brake... Maybe a little... It flashed through here and there, but it never came to pass.
Sherri Moon Zombie floats along as a calmer more....medicated Baby. But she just doesnt seem to be in to it like she was previously.
Before people get on me about Zombie, I am a fan. I love his music, movies and artwork. I have always been oneof his biggest supporters. When he "destroyed" Halloween. I was there, sticking up for him until my ears bled. When people said Lords of Salem was a shitty art house movie... I was there... Holding my banner high saying "Everyone makes an art flick once in a while... Hell, Argento made a career of it. When 31 came a long... I painted my face white and punched myself til i bled out my nose and mouth... Metaphorically of course... Im not certifiable...
My point is I have stuck up for R0b Zombie for most of his directing and writing lifetime... But I can no longer do so.
This movie fell a part not too long after it started. From Otis walking the ramps of courthouses and jails spouting off lime Manson... Too Baby appearing to be more off her rocker than usual, reminding me of Aileen Wournos...
Seeing Captain Spaulding for the brief few minutes made the film worth it for me. Listening to Baby and Otis talk about him in the 2nd act nearly brought the waterfalls from the eyes... But i refrained.
Here we have a movie that could've been something special had it been made 10 years ago.
I am saddened not only by the passing of Mr. Haig, but that this movie was a let down... It had its moments of over the top gore and killer dialogue. And it has a scene that will forever be engrained in my brain. But I just can't give it apassing grade.
Never fear Mr. Zombie, I still have your back... Abd I always will. But this time I'm standing in front of you... Telling you, honestly, I didn't like it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated 4 Minute Mile (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Once again, Skewed & Reviewed has granted me the good fortune to screen another film for
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
Ian Malcolm Should Have Left Them On the Island
Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a twelve-year-old in 1997: “Oh man, I can’t wait to check out all this dino action! Raptors for life!” Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a thirty-five-year-old in 2019: “Why the hell are they going back to the island? These people clearly have a death wish!” Yes, the sequel to one of the greatest movies ever made sees a return to the dinosaur madness as a special team led by Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm goes on a mission for Jurassic Park’s creator John Hammond (Richard Attenborough).
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
Keep Her Safe
8.0
Rate It
Book
In the blink of an eye, she's gone. Maggie’s daughter Penny is her whole world… and she’d do...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Cinematography (1 more)
Visceral and enormously tense movie experience
Visceral, brilliant and a far from relaxing evening at the movies.
It's already won Best Film at the Golden Globes, and seems set for Oscar glory too. Is Sam Mendes's WW1 epic any good?
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
Infected by Scott Sigler
Podcast
Across America a mysterious disease is turning ordinary people into raving, paranoid murderers who...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I had a dream. A sob. A sing.
You remember in “Aliens” when Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) fought through hell and high water against that “bitch” to protect the youngster Newt (Carrie Henn)? And then how betrayed you felt in that emotional investment at the start of “Alien 3”?
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Gideon's Angel in Books
Aug 15, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.