Search
Search results
Allison Anders recommended Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) in Movies (curated)
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated The Silent Songbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
This story may be a retelling of The Little Mermaid...but there are no sea witches or talking seagulls in this book. What you will find is a beautiful maiden with the voice of an angel.
Eva longs to be free...Free of the restraints that have been cast upon her by her status. Even if it means to work hard as a servant for the rest of her life. When King Richard decrees that she marry Lord Shiveley, Evangeline decides that she must run away or face a life of fear and abuse. In order to avoid detection, she pretends she is mute. But when her secret is revealed will those she has come to care for be able to forgive her? When Westley's life is in danger, yet Eva is the only witness...Will they heed her word? Or has the seed of mistrust been buried too deep?
Throughout her life Evangeline's voice has brought comfort and pleasure to herself and those around her. But she must stifle that gift in order to hide her identity. Throughout the story we see Westley encourage and draw out the voice, her true identity, that she has hidden. He is so gentle and sweet with her. Evangeline eventually learns that faith and trust in God is the strength she must lean on.
My only knowledge of The Little Mermaid is the animated Disney version. But as you compare the stories, there are several parallel characters. I think what I love most about Melanie Dickerson is that she takes the classic childhood fairy tales and creates a world, a story, that is realistic, yet still so full of "magic". There is also the added element of faith that adds a whole new dimension to the story. Set in medieval England, the way of life was much different then. But I so enjoy immersing myself into the time period and Melanie Dickerson's books. To be swept away by the adventure and live alongside the people of Glynval.
There are a few twists in the storyline that prove to be heartbreaking, exciting, and romantic. A quick read, The Silent Songbird will keep you turning the pages until you are finished. Even though this is a part of the Hagenheim Series. I did not recognize any of the characters (I have only read The Golden Braid and The Silent Songbird so far). You can read this book by itself and not have any confusion. This story is for "Young Adults" (I am still young right?), but is also great for adults. I am so thankful to Melanie for writing stories that are clean and faith filled for our teenagers.
I received a free copy of The Silent Songbird. I was not required to write a review and this does not influence my review, positive or otherwise. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
Eva longs to be free...Free of the restraints that have been cast upon her by her status. Even if it means to work hard as a servant for the rest of her life. When King Richard decrees that she marry Lord Shiveley, Evangeline decides that she must run away or face a life of fear and abuse. In order to avoid detection, she pretends she is mute. But when her secret is revealed will those she has come to care for be able to forgive her? When Westley's life is in danger, yet Eva is the only witness...Will they heed her word? Or has the seed of mistrust been buried too deep?
Throughout her life Evangeline's voice has brought comfort and pleasure to herself and those around her. But she must stifle that gift in order to hide her identity. Throughout the story we see Westley encourage and draw out the voice, her true identity, that she has hidden. He is so gentle and sweet with her. Evangeline eventually learns that faith and trust in God is the strength she must lean on.
My only knowledge of The Little Mermaid is the animated Disney version. But as you compare the stories, there are several parallel characters. I think what I love most about Melanie Dickerson is that she takes the classic childhood fairy tales and creates a world, a story, that is realistic, yet still so full of "magic". There is also the added element of faith that adds a whole new dimension to the story. Set in medieval England, the way of life was much different then. But I so enjoy immersing myself into the time period and Melanie Dickerson's books. To be swept away by the adventure and live alongside the people of Glynval.
There are a few twists in the storyline that prove to be heartbreaking, exciting, and romantic. A quick read, The Silent Songbird will keep you turning the pages until you are finished. Even though this is a part of the Hagenheim Series. I did not recognize any of the characters (I have only read The Golden Braid and The Silent Songbird so far). You can read this book by itself and not have any confusion. This story is for "Young Adults" (I am still young right?), but is also great for adults. I am so thankful to Melanie for writing stories that are clean and faith filled for our teenagers.
I received a free copy of The Silent Songbird. I was not required to write a review and this does not influence my review, positive or otherwise. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Micro in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The book Micro by Michael Crichton and Richard Prestom was great. I may be a little biased because Michael Crichton is one of my favorite authors but at the same time I hold his work to a specific standard that he must meet or else I'm disappointed. Like most of his work Micro touches on some topics that as a society we should be aware of. It warns us of some disasters that new technology, being worked on or possibly already created, can cause. It id also an eye opener to the dangers of that our inventions pose.
In Micro a group of young graduate students at a college or approached by the head of a company called Nanigen. The graduate students are invited out to the Nanigen lab in Hawaii to see for themselves the work being done there and to see if they want to work for the company. Out of curiosity all the approached graduate students agree to go but their trip to Hawaii becomes more than what they bargain for.
Nanigen is studying the micro world mainly looking for chemicals that micro animals are making that could be useful to humans in some way. Also like many scientific companies in the private sector Nanigen is doing top secret work for the government. Greed gets in the way for some of the scientist already working for the company and the trip becomes extremely dangerous and even deadly for the graduate students. Having to deal with micro-bots and new technology never heard of before the students must fight to survive a world very different from our own.
What I like most about the book was one of the same features that keeps me reading Michael Crichton's work. The author does his research very thoroughly. The book may be a work of science fiction but there is a bibliography in the back for the curious reader to be able to learn more about the fascinating topics brought up in the book. For being a work of fiction the animals, plants, chemicals, technology,and scientific concepts are not. What I liked least about the book was how similar to another one of his books it was and how predictable some parts felt to me. Again though, I am very familiar with Michael Crichton's work and that would probably explain why it felt so predictable. I cannot hold that against the book.
Overall I would rate this book a 4 out of 4 and would highly recommend it. It has a very strong story and is believable which is an important factor for science fiction. The target readers for this book would start around high school age if not older. I feel like high school students will get the basic concept of what book was talking about but they might be lost on some of the finer detail. It all just depends on if the book is being read for the story or if the reader is interested in science specifically microbiology and nanotechnology.
I feel like I need to note on here that Richard Preston finishing the book did not harm it in any way.
In Micro a group of young graduate students at a college or approached by the head of a company called Nanigen. The graduate students are invited out to the Nanigen lab in Hawaii to see for themselves the work being done there and to see if they want to work for the company. Out of curiosity all the approached graduate students agree to go but their trip to Hawaii becomes more than what they bargain for.
Nanigen is studying the micro world mainly looking for chemicals that micro animals are making that could be useful to humans in some way. Also like many scientific companies in the private sector Nanigen is doing top secret work for the government. Greed gets in the way for some of the scientist already working for the company and the trip becomes extremely dangerous and even deadly for the graduate students. Having to deal with micro-bots and new technology never heard of before the students must fight to survive a world very different from our own.
What I like most about the book was one of the same features that keeps me reading Michael Crichton's work. The author does his research very thoroughly. The book may be a work of science fiction but there is a bibliography in the back for the curious reader to be able to learn more about the fascinating topics brought up in the book. For being a work of fiction the animals, plants, chemicals, technology,and scientific concepts are not. What I liked least about the book was how similar to another one of his books it was and how predictable some parts felt to me. Again though, I am very familiar with Michael Crichton's work and that would probably explain why it felt so predictable. I cannot hold that against the book.
Overall I would rate this book a 4 out of 4 and would highly recommend it. It has a very strong story and is believable which is an important factor for science fiction. The target readers for this book would start around high school age if not older. I feel like high school students will get the basic concept of what book was talking about but they might be lost on some of the finer detail. It all just depends on if the book is being read for the story or if the reader is interested in science specifically microbiology and nanotechnology.
I feel like I need to note on here that Richard Preston finishing the book did not harm it in any way.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Sleepy Hollow (1999) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020 (Updated Apr 20, 2020)
Sleepy Hollow is one of those films that I will always love. I first saw it when I was 13, when DVDs were still pretty new, and I would watch it over and over again.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Micro in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Review Just becasue
The book Micro by Michael Crichton and Richard Prestom was great. I may be a little biased because Michael Crichton is one of my favorite authors but at the same time I hold his work to a specific standard that he must meet or else I'm disappointed. Like most of his work Micro touches on some topics that as a society we should be aware of. It warns us of some disasters that new technology, being worked on or possibly already created, can cause. It id also an eye opener to the dangers of that our inventions pose.
In Micro a group of young graduate students at a college or approached by the head of a company called Nanigen. The graduate students are invited out to the Nanigen lab in Hawaii to see for themselves the work being done there and to see if they want to work for the company. Out of curiosity all the approached graduate students agree to go but their trip to Hawaii becomes more than what they bargain for.
Nanigen is studying the micro world mainly looking for chemicals that micro animals are making that could be useful to humans in some way. Also like many scientific companies in the private sector Nanigen is doing top secret work for the government. Greed gets in the way for some of the scientist already working for the company and the trip becomes extremely dangerous and even deadly for the graduate students. Having to deal with micro-bots and new technology never heard of before the students must fight to survive a world very different from our own.
What I like most about the book was one of the same features that keeps me reading Michael Crichton's work. The author does his research very thoroughly. The book may be a work of science fiction but there is a bibliography in the back for the curious reader to be able to learn more about the fascinating topics brought up in the book. For being a work of fiction the animals, plants, chemicals, technology,and scientific concepts are not. What I liked least about the book was how similar to another one of his books it was and how predictable some parts felt to me. Again though, I am very familiar with Michael Crichton's work and that would probably explain why it felt so predictable. I cannot hold that against the book.
Overall I would rate this book a 4 out of 4 and would highly recommend it. It has a very strong story and is believable which is an important factor for science fiction. The target readers for this book would start around high school age if not older. I feel like high school students will get the basic concept of what book was talking about but they might be lost on some of the finer detail. It all just depends on if the book is being read for the story or if the reader is interested in science specifically microbiology and nanotechnology.
I feel like I need to note on here that Richard Preston finishing the book did not harm it in any way.
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
In Micro a group of young graduate students at a college or approached by the head of a company called Nanigen. The graduate students are invited out to the Nanigen lab in Hawaii to see for themselves the work being done there and to see if they want to work for the company. Out of curiosity all the approached graduate students agree to go but their trip to Hawaii becomes more than what they bargain for.
Nanigen is studying the micro world mainly looking for chemicals that micro animals are making that could be useful to humans in some way. Also like many scientific companies in the private sector Nanigen is doing top secret work for the government. Greed gets in the way for some of the scientist already working for the company and the trip becomes extremely dangerous and even deadly for the graduate students. Having to deal with micro-bots and new technology never heard of before the students must fight to survive a world very different from our own.
What I like most about the book was one of the same features that keeps me reading Michael Crichton's work. The author does his research very thoroughly. The book may be a work of science fiction but there is a bibliography in the back for the curious reader to be able to learn more about the fascinating topics brought up in the book. For being a work of fiction the animals, plants, chemicals, technology,and scientific concepts are not. What I liked least about the book was how similar to another one of his books it was and how predictable some parts felt to me. Again though, I am very familiar with Michael Crichton's work and that would probably explain why it felt so predictable. I cannot hold that against the book.
Overall I would rate this book a 4 out of 4 and would highly recommend it. It has a very strong story and is believable which is an important factor for science fiction. The target readers for this book would start around high school age if not older. I feel like high school students will get the basic concept of what book was talking about but they might be lost on some of the finer detail. It all just depends on if the book is being read for the story or if the reader is interested in science specifically microbiology and nanotechnology.
I feel like I need to note on here that Richard Preston finishing the book did not harm it in any way.
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Darren (1599 KP) rated An Officer and a Gentleman (1982) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Thoughts on An Officer and a Gentleman
Characters – Zack Mayo has grown up under his father that never believed he could achieve anything, he decides to sign up for the navy to follow his dreams of being a pilot, he believes he can just coast through the training alone, only for his way to see him needing to learn to let people in, meet a girl decide whether love is the most important thing in his life or whether he can balance everything together. Paula is a factory worker that goes for parties around the naval candidates, she meets Zack seeing him as different from the rest and gets left constantly wondering if he is willing to change his lone wolf nature. Sid is fellow naval candidate that becomes Zack’s best friend, he pushes him to open up and is the brains that could help Zack through the side that he is struggling through. Sgt Emil Foley is drill sergeant that is training the candidates, he is strict and doesn’t like how Zack thinks he can breeze through the training.
Performances – Richard Gere in this leading role shows us all that he was going on to have a wonderful run as a leading actor, he could play the loveable rogue that wants to find his place in the world. Debra Winger is great here showing how her character is going through a difficult lifetime, where love can make things even more difficult. David Keith brings us a performance which does show us how depression can be hidden from the world. Louis Gossett Jr does bring us one of the best drill sergeants in film here that did get him an Oscar.
Story – The story here follows a rebellious young man that finds his place in the navy, where he learns to work with others and to fall in love, to motivate and find himself a career along the way, he will need to overcome life challenges which will shape his future. We do get to see many different challenges that young people could face when they reach a certain age, this will show us just how difficult people will need to overcome to be the people they were always meant to be. We do get to see the darker side of the services because they will show us just how people can hide the emotional troubles which could bring a life changing moment in their life.
Romance – The love story in this film shows how a rebel meets a girl searching for hope and fall madly in love either though neither of them were really looking for it.
Settings – The film uses a couple of main settings, with the training camp being one of the most iconic for the film, the most iconic comes from warehouse where Paula works, which will be the shot everybody remembers from this film.
Scene of the Movie – Zack breaks to learn to help others.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Lynette wouldn’t still be Paula’s friend by the end of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the classic romantic films out there, one that everybody knows and can enjoy.
Overall: Romance to enjoy.
Characters – Zack Mayo has grown up under his father that never believed he could achieve anything, he decides to sign up for the navy to follow his dreams of being a pilot, he believes he can just coast through the training alone, only for his way to see him needing to learn to let people in, meet a girl decide whether love is the most important thing in his life or whether he can balance everything together. Paula is a factory worker that goes for parties around the naval candidates, she meets Zack seeing him as different from the rest and gets left constantly wondering if he is willing to change his lone wolf nature. Sid is fellow naval candidate that becomes Zack’s best friend, he pushes him to open up and is the brains that could help Zack through the side that he is struggling through. Sgt Emil Foley is drill sergeant that is training the candidates, he is strict and doesn’t like how Zack thinks he can breeze through the training.
Performances – Richard Gere in this leading role shows us all that he was going on to have a wonderful run as a leading actor, he could play the loveable rogue that wants to find his place in the world. Debra Winger is great here showing how her character is going through a difficult lifetime, where love can make things even more difficult. David Keith brings us a performance which does show us how depression can be hidden from the world. Louis Gossett Jr does bring us one of the best drill sergeants in film here that did get him an Oscar.
Story – The story here follows a rebellious young man that finds his place in the navy, where he learns to work with others and to fall in love, to motivate and find himself a career along the way, he will need to overcome life challenges which will shape his future. We do get to see many different challenges that young people could face when they reach a certain age, this will show us just how difficult people will need to overcome to be the people they were always meant to be. We do get to see the darker side of the services because they will show us just how people can hide the emotional troubles which could bring a life changing moment in their life.
Romance – The love story in this film shows how a rebel meets a girl searching for hope and fall madly in love either though neither of them were really looking for it.
Settings – The film uses a couple of main settings, with the training camp being one of the most iconic for the film, the most iconic comes from warehouse where Paula works, which will be the shot everybody remembers from this film.
Scene of the Movie – Zack breaks to learn to help others.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Lynette wouldn’t still be Paula’s friend by the end of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the classic romantic films out there, one that everybody knows and can enjoy.
Overall: Romance to enjoy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Life Of Pi (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I heard that one of my favorite books was being converted into a movie, I was a little skeptical. Add one of my favorite directors, Ang Lee, and my skepticism started to recede. As many know, Lee is renowned for his artistic vision and cinematography. I fell in love with his vision of “Sense and Sensibility,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and “Brokeback Mountain.” To me, if there was a director who could capture the beauty and imagery of this book, it was Lee.
The movie and the book are great parallels of one another. The story revolves around a young Indian boy named Piscine (“Pool” in French) who spent much of his youth in Pondicherry, a French colony of India. Much of the book, and movie, include flash-backs of Pi’s life in India – the ridicule of his name, his father’s ownership of a zoo, etc. When Pi and his family decide to move to Canada due to political concerns (the book covers much more of this, including Pi’s exploration of various spiritualties/religions), they are chartered on a ship. En route, they encounter a fierce storm which capsizes their vessel, leaving Pi on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a hyena, an injured zebra, and an orangutan.
Being the only human on board with said animals, Pi naturally fears for his welfare. He observes the hyena killing the injured zebra and then turning on the orangutan. The orangutan, as one should note, cares for Pi in a very motherly fashion (remember that Pi’s whole family had drowned in the ship), and her death was very difficult for Pi to endure. Eventually, the hyena succumbs to death by the tiger. As further explained in the movie and novel, Pi names the tiger “Richard Parker” and the two of them set out to endure their lives aboard the ship in some strange sort of symbiotic relationship.
Lee’s vision transforms this novel into a brilliant masterpiece. Like “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” you will be awed by the cinematography and artistic interpretation he presents. The young actors employed for the role of Pi (Gautam Belur, Ayush Tandon, Suraj Sharma & Irrfan Khan) are downright perfect and I particularly enjoyed Gerard Depardieu as the grizzled and difficult French cook (not a difficult stretch for him as one can imagine). Overall, as an avid lover of Yann Martel’s novel and Ang Lee’s work, I can say this is a beautiful movie and one many will enjoy (even if you haven’t read the novel – which you MUST do).
My only complaint is that while it is a beautiful representation of CGI technology, sometimes it looked a bit too manufactured and fantastical. Their work on the tiger, however, was downright genius (and I personally hate when they create CGI animals instead of working with the real thing – but in this instance it worked very well). The ending and symbolism of this work is what makes it truly a piece of art. If you’re a fan of “Inception” and “The Sixth Sense,” you will enjoy the twist at the end.
Overall, I think this is a lovely representation of the novel and a great movie all around. I highly suggest checking it out.
The movie and the book are great parallels of one another. The story revolves around a young Indian boy named Piscine (“Pool” in French) who spent much of his youth in Pondicherry, a French colony of India. Much of the book, and movie, include flash-backs of Pi’s life in India – the ridicule of his name, his father’s ownership of a zoo, etc. When Pi and his family decide to move to Canada due to political concerns (the book covers much more of this, including Pi’s exploration of various spiritualties/religions), they are chartered on a ship. En route, they encounter a fierce storm which capsizes their vessel, leaving Pi on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a hyena, an injured zebra, and an orangutan.
Being the only human on board with said animals, Pi naturally fears for his welfare. He observes the hyena killing the injured zebra and then turning on the orangutan. The orangutan, as one should note, cares for Pi in a very motherly fashion (remember that Pi’s whole family had drowned in the ship), and her death was very difficult for Pi to endure. Eventually, the hyena succumbs to death by the tiger. As further explained in the movie and novel, Pi names the tiger “Richard Parker” and the two of them set out to endure their lives aboard the ship in some strange sort of symbiotic relationship.
Lee’s vision transforms this novel into a brilliant masterpiece. Like “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” you will be awed by the cinematography and artistic interpretation he presents. The young actors employed for the role of Pi (Gautam Belur, Ayush Tandon, Suraj Sharma & Irrfan Khan) are downright perfect and I particularly enjoyed Gerard Depardieu as the grizzled and difficult French cook (not a difficult stretch for him as one can imagine). Overall, as an avid lover of Yann Martel’s novel and Ang Lee’s work, I can say this is a beautiful movie and one many will enjoy (even if you haven’t read the novel – which you MUST do).
My only complaint is that while it is a beautiful representation of CGI technology, sometimes it looked a bit too manufactured and fantastical. Their work on the tiger, however, was downright genius (and I personally hate when they create CGI animals instead of working with the real thing – but in this instance it worked very well). The ending and symbolism of this work is what makes it truly a piece of art. If you’re a fan of “Inception” and “The Sixth Sense,” you will enjoy the twist at the end.
Overall, I think this is a lovely representation of the novel and a great movie all around. I highly suggest checking it out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
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.