Search
Levels of the Game
John McPhee and William Fiennes
Book
Described by Robert Lipsyte as 'the high point of American sports journalism', John McPhee's Levels...
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated New Year's Eve (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
If you ask me, holiday movies have lost their way over the past few years. Not that there haven’t been any good holiday movies recently, but let’s face it… “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” is no “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I think that New Year’s Eve brings us back to the feel good holiday movies that the film industry has been missing.
The cast in this is huge. Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Carla Gugino, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Sofia Vergara, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Hilary Swank and Josh Duhamel are all players in this film. This is only the tip of the ice berg too as there are many smaller roles with cameos from big names.
New Year’s Eve follows several different story lines that are all connected in some way, whether small or big, the stories do intertwine. Michelle Pfieffer plays a meek, timid office worker who finally has had it with her miserable job. She enlists the help of bike messenger Zac Efron to help her complete all the tasks on her “bucket list” type resolution list. Robert De Niro plays a dying cancer patient whose wish is to see the ball drop one last time, and Halle Berry is the nurse that is attending him. Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel play an expectant couple who are in a race with another couple to have the first baby of the New Year in order to win the Hospital’s contest and receive $25,000.
Katherine Heigl plays a chef for a catering company that has landed a huge gig at one of the largest parties in New York. Sofia Vergara is her sous chef who is humorously fanatic over Jon Bon Jovi. Jon Bon Jovi plays a version of himself (a musician) who happens to be Katherine Heigl’s ex-boyfriend. Ashton Kutcher is very anti-New Year’s and during his protest of the holiday ends up becoming stuck in an elevator with Lea Michele, a new tenant in his building who is on her way to a new job as a backup singer.
Sarah Jessica Parker is a single mother who gets to spend the New Year with her daughter, played by Abigail Breslin. But Abigail has her sights set on spending New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Hilary Swank plays the newly appointed Vice President of the Times Square Alliance, which for the intents of this movie means that she’s in charge of the Times Square ball dropping and runs into a few problems along the way. Josh Duhamel is desperately trying to make it from his cousin’s wedding to New York City in time to give an important speech at his company’s party, as well as make another very important meeting.
I found this movie to be a great date movie. It’s cute and funny, but without being overly obnoxious as some holiday movies try to be. It is very clever in its story telling, and makes great use of the stellar cast. Though I personally could have done without the Robert De Niro story line, I really enjoyed the film overall. It is great to see a wholesome Holiday movie that does not have to rely on gags and clichés (not too much anyway).
The cast in this is huge. Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Carla Gugino, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Sofia Vergara, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Hilary Swank and Josh Duhamel are all players in this film. This is only the tip of the ice berg too as there are many smaller roles with cameos from big names.
New Year’s Eve follows several different story lines that are all connected in some way, whether small or big, the stories do intertwine. Michelle Pfieffer plays a meek, timid office worker who finally has had it with her miserable job. She enlists the help of bike messenger Zac Efron to help her complete all the tasks on her “bucket list” type resolution list. Robert De Niro plays a dying cancer patient whose wish is to see the ball drop one last time, and Halle Berry is the nurse that is attending him. Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel play an expectant couple who are in a race with another couple to have the first baby of the New Year in order to win the Hospital’s contest and receive $25,000.
Katherine Heigl plays a chef for a catering company that has landed a huge gig at one of the largest parties in New York. Sofia Vergara is her sous chef who is humorously fanatic over Jon Bon Jovi. Jon Bon Jovi plays a version of himself (a musician) who happens to be Katherine Heigl’s ex-boyfriend. Ashton Kutcher is very anti-New Year’s and during his protest of the holiday ends up becoming stuck in an elevator with Lea Michele, a new tenant in his building who is on her way to a new job as a backup singer.
Sarah Jessica Parker is a single mother who gets to spend the New Year with her daughter, played by Abigail Breslin. But Abigail has her sights set on spending New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Hilary Swank plays the newly appointed Vice President of the Times Square Alliance, which for the intents of this movie means that she’s in charge of the Times Square ball dropping and runs into a few problems along the way. Josh Duhamel is desperately trying to make it from his cousin’s wedding to New York City in time to give an important speech at his company’s party, as well as make another very important meeting.
I found this movie to be a great date movie. It’s cute and funny, but without being overly obnoxious as some holiday movies try to be. It is very clever in its story telling, and makes great use of the stellar cast. Though I personally could have done without the Robert De Niro story line, I really enjoyed the film overall. It is great to see a wholesome Holiday movie that does not have to rely on gags and clichés (not too much anyway).
The Admiral Benbow: The Life and Times of a Naval Legend
Book
Admiral John Benbow was an English naval hero, a fighting sailor of ruthless methods but indomitable...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dead Ringers (1988) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020 (Updated Sep 15, 2020)
Whats The Difference Between Us
Dead Ringers- is a decent movie, its the last movie david cronenberg did in the 80's. So his 80's streak ending on a low ball/a dispointment. I really liked Jeremy Irons he was really good. And the psychological espect was good as well. Other than that it was a okay movie.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.
Sky's the Limit: Froome, Wiggins and the Quest to Conquer the Tour de France: 2013
Book
On Sunday 22 July, Bradley Wiggins became the first British rider ever to win the Tour de France. It...
Ridiculous Fishing - A Tale of Redemption
Games and Entertainment
App
A handcrafted game about fishing with guns, chainsaws & toasters. Follow Billy as he tries to find...
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
Robert P. Lanza and Bob Berman
Book
Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world--a US News & World Report cover...
JT (287 KP) rated Killer Elite (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Just another mindless Statham master-class of ass kicking? Think again people, this one is a whole different ball game, and one that sets this easily one of the Stath’s best to date. Paired alongside Robert De Niro would be an honour in itself for any actor and the rapport between the two was like they had been lifelong friends.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.