Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The House at the Edge of the Night in Books
Oct 20, 2017
For Victoria Hislop fans
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Castellamare, a small island off the south coast of Italy, is the perfect setting for a captivating epic tale that traces a family from the beginning of the 1900s until the more recent year of 2009. Centred at the island’s only bar ‘The House at the Edge of the Night’, the island inhabitants suffer through two world wars, fascism, tourism and recession, however, the bar determinedly stays standing. But what happens in the rest of the world is largely ignored by the island dwellers that prefer to come to the bar to learn about friendships, betrayals and love affairs.
The House at the Edge of the Night begins on the mainland where the Dr Esposito removes the foundling Amadeo from care. Following in his foster father’s footsteps, Amadea Esposito trains to be a doctor and eventually lands himself a position on Castellamare. Having never had a doctor on the island before, Amadeo is welcomed by almost everyone, however, an illicit affair puts an end to his career. Fortunately, The House at the End of the Night provides Amadeo with an income and a home for his new wife, Pina, and his four children.
The story takes the reader through the Second World War, something that is interesting to read from the Italian’s point of view. Rejecting fascism, the Islanders are enraged when their boys are called up to join the war, especially as many, including Amadeo’s three boys, never return. With only a daughter, Maria-Grazia, remaining, the Esposito’s keep the bar going for lack of anything better to do.
But war brings good things as well as bad. Washed up on sure, the British soldier Robert brings good luck to the superstitious villagers, eventually marrying the lovely Maria-Grazia. The story continues through the childhood of their unruly boys, coming to an end as their granddaughter reaches adulthood.
A doctor and a barman, Amadeo also had a love for stories. Listening to his patients and patrons fantastical tales, Amadeo keeps note of them all in his personal notebook. Split into five parts, the book contains a story at the beginning of each section that, although mythical, set the scene for the subsequent narrative.
Alienated from the rest of the world, the Islanders are stuck in their ways, attributing any luck – good and bad – to their patron saint, Sant’Agata. Whenever life gets tough, the people on Castellamare turn to prayer, which although is part of their Catholic faith, often comes across as superstitious and irrational. They refuse to believe any logical explanation, preferring to regard their island as a magical, preternatural site.
There is no specific storyline with the usual climax and conclusion; instead, it works as a biography of a fictional family. It is interesting to regard the impact of the rapidly developing world on the island, from the introduction of a building society and the eventual launch of the Europe – something that the Islanders are naturally against. The inhabitants of Castellamare come across as naïve, but their backgrounds and beliefs are far more interesting than the average person.
The House at the Edge of the Night is a story of stories. It provides more than to be expected from a novel. Catherine Banner writes of beautiful settings, compelling characters and fascinating events that both amuse and entertain in a moving way.
With Victoria Hislop’s novels such as The Island being all the rage amongst many female readers, Catherine Banner’s The House at the Edge of the Night is destined for success. It is a great book to read on holiday or at home, and perfect for book clubs. This book is the ideal escape from the stresses of everyday life.
Castellamare, a small island off the south coast of Italy, is the perfect setting for a captivating epic tale that traces a family from the beginning of the 1900s until the more recent year of 2009. Centred at the island’s only bar ‘The House at the Edge of the Night’, the island inhabitants suffer through two world wars, fascism, tourism and recession, however, the bar determinedly stays standing. But what happens in the rest of the world is largely ignored by the island dwellers that prefer to come to the bar to learn about friendships, betrayals and love affairs.
The House at the Edge of the Night begins on the mainland where the Dr Esposito removes the foundling Amadeo from care. Following in his foster father’s footsteps, Amadea Esposito trains to be a doctor and eventually lands himself a position on Castellamare. Having never had a doctor on the island before, Amadeo is welcomed by almost everyone, however, an illicit affair puts an end to his career. Fortunately, The House at the End of the Night provides Amadeo with an income and a home for his new wife, Pina, and his four children.
The story takes the reader through the Second World War, something that is interesting to read from the Italian’s point of view. Rejecting fascism, the Islanders are enraged when their boys are called up to join the war, especially as many, including Amadeo’s three boys, never return. With only a daughter, Maria-Grazia, remaining, the Esposito’s keep the bar going for lack of anything better to do.
But war brings good things as well as bad. Washed up on sure, the British soldier Robert brings good luck to the superstitious villagers, eventually marrying the lovely Maria-Grazia. The story continues through the childhood of their unruly boys, coming to an end as their granddaughter reaches adulthood.
A doctor and a barman, Amadeo also had a love for stories. Listening to his patients and patrons fantastical tales, Amadeo keeps note of them all in his personal notebook. Split into five parts, the book contains a story at the beginning of each section that, although mythical, set the scene for the subsequent narrative.
Alienated from the rest of the world, the Islanders are stuck in their ways, attributing any luck – good and bad – to their patron saint, Sant’Agata. Whenever life gets tough, the people on Castellamare turn to prayer, which although is part of their Catholic faith, often comes across as superstitious and irrational. They refuse to believe any logical explanation, preferring to regard their island as a magical, preternatural site.
There is no specific storyline with the usual climax and conclusion; instead, it works as a biography of a fictional family. It is interesting to regard the impact of the rapidly developing world on the island, from the introduction of a building society and the eventual launch of the Europe – something that the Islanders are naturally against. The inhabitants of Castellamare come across as naïve, but their backgrounds and beliefs are far more interesting than the average person.
The House at the Edge of the Night is a story of stories. It provides more than to be expected from a novel. Catherine Banner writes of beautiful settings, compelling characters and fascinating events that both amuse and entertain in a moving way.
With Victoria Hislop’s novels such as The Island being all the rage amongst many female readers, Catherine Banner’s The House at the Edge of the Night is destined for success. It is a great book to read on holiday or at home, and perfect for book clubs. This book is the ideal escape from the stresses of everyday life.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The House at the Edge of the Night in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Castellamare, a small island off the south coast of Italy, is the perfect setting for a captivating epic tale that traces a family from the beginning of the 1900s until the more recent year of 2009. Centred at the island’s only bar ‘The House at the Edge of the Night’, the island inhabitants suffer through two world wars, fascism, tourism and recession, however, the bar determinedly stays standing. But what happens in the rest of the world is largely ignored by the island dwellers that prefer to come to the bar to learn about friendships, betrayals and love affairs.
<i>The House at the Edge of the Night </i>begins on the mainland where the Dr Esposito removes the foundling Amadeo from care. Following in his foster father’s footsteps, Amadea Esposito trains to be a doctor and eventually lands himself a position on Castellamare. Having never had a doctor on the island before, Amadeo is welcomed by almost everyone, however, an illicit affair puts an end to his career. Fortunately, The House at the End of the Night provides Amadeo with an income and a home for his new wife, Pina, and his four children.
The story takes the reader through the Second World War, something that is interesting to read from the Italian’s point of view. Rejecting fascism, the Islanders are enraged when their boys are called up to join the war, especially as many, including Amadeo’s three boys, never return. With only a daughter, Maria-Grazia, remaining, the Esposito’s keep the bar going for lack of anything better to do.
But war brings good things as well as bad. Washed up on sure, the British soldier Robert brings good luck to the superstitious villagers, eventually marrying the lovely Maria-Grazia. The story continues through the childhood of their unruly boys, coming to an end as their granddaughter reaches adulthood.
A doctor and a barman, Amadeo also had a love for stories. Listening to his patients and patrons fantastical tales, Amadeo keeps note of them all in his personal notebook. Split into five parts, the book contains a story at the beginning of each section that, although mythical, set the scene for the subsequent narrative.
Alienated from the rest of the world, the Islanders are stuck in their ways, attributing any luck – good and bad – to their patron saint, Sant’Agata. Whenever life gets tough, the people on Castellamare turn to prayer, which although is part of their Catholic faith, often comes across as superstitious and irrational. They refuse to believe any logical explanation, preferring to regard their island as a magical, preternatural site.
There is no specific storyline with the usual climax and conclusion; instead, it works as a biography of a fictional family. It is interesting to regard the impact of the rapidly developing world on the island, from the introduction of a building society and the eventual launch of the Europe – something that the Islanders are naturally against. The inhabitants of Castellamare come across as naïve, but their backgrounds and beliefs are far more interesting than the average person.
<i>The House at the Edge of the Night</i> is a story of stories. It provides more than to be expected from a novel. Catherine Banner writes of beautiful settings, compelling characters and fascinating events that both amuse and entertain in a moving way.
With Victoria Hislop’s novels such as <i>The Island</i> being all the rage amongst many female readers, Catherine Banner’s <i>The House at the Edge of the Night </i>is destined for success. It is a great book to read on holiday or at home, and perfect for book clubs. This book is the ideal escape from the stresses of everyday life.
Castellamare, a small island off the south coast of Italy, is the perfect setting for a captivating epic tale that traces a family from the beginning of the 1900s until the more recent year of 2009. Centred at the island’s only bar ‘The House at the Edge of the Night’, the island inhabitants suffer through two world wars, fascism, tourism and recession, however, the bar determinedly stays standing. But what happens in the rest of the world is largely ignored by the island dwellers that prefer to come to the bar to learn about friendships, betrayals and love affairs.
<i>The House at the Edge of the Night </i>begins on the mainland where the Dr Esposito removes the foundling Amadeo from care. Following in his foster father’s footsteps, Amadea Esposito trains to be a doctor and eventually lands himself a position on Castellamare. Having never had a doctor on the island before, Amadeo is welcomed by almost everyone, however, an illicit affair puts an end to his career. Fortunately, The House at the End of the Night provides Amadeo with an income and a home for his new wife, Pina, and his four children.
The story takes the reader through the Second World War, something that is interesting to read from the Italian’s point of view. Rejecting fascism, the Islanders are enraged when their boys are called up to join the war, especially as many, including Amadeo’s three boys, never return. With only a daughter, Maria-Grazia, remaining, the Esposito’s keep the bar going for lack of anything better to do.
But war brings good things as well as bad. Washed up on sure, the British soldier Robert brings good luck to the superstitious villagers, eventually marrying the lovely Maria-Grazia. The story continues through the childhood of their unruly boys, coming to an end as their granddaughter reaches adulthood.
A doctor and a barman, Amadeo also had a love for stories. Listening to his patients and patrons fantastical tales, Amadeo keeps note of them all in his personal notebook. Split into five parts, the book contains a story at the beginning of each section that, although mythical, set the scene for the subsequent narrative.
Alienated from the rest of the world, the Islanders are stuck in their ways, attributing any luck – good and bad – to their patron saint, Sant’Agata. Whenever life gets tough, the people on Castellamare turn to prayer, which although is part of their Catholic faith, often comes across as superstitious and irrational. They refuse to believe any logical explanation, preferring to regard their island as a magical, preternatural site.
There is no specific storyline with the usual climax and conclusion; instead, it works as a biography of a fictional family. It is interesting to regard the impact of the rapidly developing world on the island, from the introduction of a building society and the eventual launch of the Europe – something that the Islanders are naturally against. The inhabitants of Castellamare come across as naïve, but their backgrounds and beliefs are far more interesting than the average person.
<i>The House at the Edge of the Night</i> is a story of stories. It provides more than to be expected from a novel. Catherine Banner writes of beautiful settings, compelling characters and fascinating events that both amuse and entertain in a moving way.
With Victoria Hislop’s novels such as <i>The Island</i> being all the rage amongst many female readers, Catherine Banner’s <i>The House at the Edge of the Night </i>is destined for success. It is a great book to read on holiday or at home, and perfect for book clubs. This book is the ideal escape from the stresses of everyday life.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Action-packed and cracked me up
Thor, the God of Thunder, is about to ascend to his rightful place as King of Asgard and, in the process, will go up against the greatest opposition he has ever faced. While Thor doesn’t quite earn a spot in the upper echelon of Marvel films, it is still quite awesome and pleasing to watch. It’s the fun origin story of how Thor first came to interact with Earthlings.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.