Search
Coping with Chloe
Book
Anna and Chloe are twins. They share everything. Even Chloe's terrible accident hasn't split them...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Marvel touch
The first thing I’m going to tell you about Spider-Man: Homecoming is that it has been gloriously undersold in its uninspiring trailers and promotional posters. In fact, most of the marketing materials shown made it look like this would be Iron Man 4 ft. Peter Parker. Thankfully that’s not the case.
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
Midge (525 KP) rated The Duke of Fire in Books
Jan 29, 2019
Lots of Romance, drama, tension and conflict (2 more)
Main character is kind and compassionate
Captivating and engaging story
A Wonderful Romance
"The Duke Of Fire" is a delightful story that has a bit of everything. From romance and drama to tension and conflict, and joy and sorrow, there really is something for everyone. Reminiscent of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, it is a lovely, historical fiction novel set in the magnificent Wellesley Manor, part of the beautifully scenic Exeter Estate, in England.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Miss Jane Harcourt. She is a kind, compassionate, strong, and clever governess, but has to leave her present employment due to the unwanted advances and desirous pursuits of her boss. She goes to stay with her cousin Anne and her husband David, until she is able to secure another position, working as a governess.
Jane finds herself further employment with Michael Blackstone, the Duke of Hayfield, also known as the Duke of Fire and his son, Samuel, a sweet eight-year-old little boy. Five years ago the Duke’s wife was killed in a fire and he has lived with the stress and guilt of her death ever since, as he was unable to save her from the fire before she perished. The Duke himself suffered terrible disfigurement and has become a virtual recluse in his own home.
The extremely wealthy Duke has a brother, Lord Robert Blackstone, who assists with all business matters concerning their vast estate, but, unfortunately, does not take much of a liking to Jane’s arrival. Jane in return is mistrustful of Lord Blackstone’s intentions.
I felt instantly on her side of the thoughtful, pretty, and caring Jane, particularly in her initial dealings with the Duke, with whom she was already in awe of. You can immediately sense that there was something going on, and one of the highlights of the book was following how they dealt with their emotional feelings. The Duke is, at first, hard to work out but you gradually get to know him as the story unfolds and see that he has many surprising qualities. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story-line is very believable. The story is both captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish, and I found myself rooting for both Jane and the Duke as they tried to deal with all of their conflicting emotions of that time and the courage they showed in confronting their challenges.
"The Duke of Fire" was an interesting novel particularly with regard to the interaction of the different characters - a loving, bright and energetic young boy, a handsome, but selfish and untrustworthy brother and a judgemental, gossiping, close-knit ton. Plenty of emotional angst and ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved the authors writing style which I found very easy to read. It was a fantastic read!
I delighted in every page of the book from beginning to end and my only criticism would probably be that it could have been a little longer. I liked very much how the book was ended. I have been inspired to read more from Jennifer Monroe and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Hidden Gems and the author, Jennifer Monroe for a free ARC of this book in exchange for a voluntary, honest review.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Miss Jane Harcourt. She is a kind, compassionate, strong, and clever governess, but has to leave her present employment due to the unwanted advances and desirous pursuits of her boss. She goes to stay with her cousin Anne and her husband David, until she is able to secure another position, working as a governess.
Jane finds herself further employment with Michael Blackstone, the Duke of Hayfield, also known as the Duke of Fire and his son, Samuel, a sweet eight-year-old little boy. Five years ago the Duke’s wife was killed in a fire and he has lived with the stress and guilt of her death ever since, as he was unable to save her from the fire before she perished. The Duke himself suffered terrible disfigurement and has become a virtual recluse in his own home.
The extremely wealthy Duke has a brother, Lord Robert Blackstone, who assists with all business matters concerning their vast estate, but, unfortunately, does not take much of a liking to Jane’s arrival. Jane in return is mistrustful of Lord Blackstone’s intentions.
I felt instantly on her side of the thoughtful, pretty, and caring Jane, particularly in her initial dealings with the Duke, with whom she was already in awe of. You can immediately sense that there was something going on, and one of the highlights of the book was following how they dealt with their emotional feelings. The Duke is, at first, hard to work out but you gradually get to know him as the story unfolds and see that he has many surprising qualities. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story-line is very believable. The story is both captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish, and I found myself rooting for both Jane and the Duke as they tried to deal with all of their conflicting emotions of that time and the courage they showed in confronting their challenges.
"The Duke of Fire" was an interesting novel particularly with regard to the interaction of the different characters - a loving, bright and energetic young boy, a handsome, but selfish and untrustworthy brother and a judgemental, gossiping, close-knit ton. Plenty of emotional angst and ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved the authors writing style which I found very easy to read. It was a fantastic read!
I delighted in every page of the book from beginning to end and my only criticism would probably be that it could have been a little longer. I liked very much how the book was ended. I have been inspired to read more from Jennifer Monroe and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Hidden Gems and the author, Jennifer Monroe for a free ARC of this book in exchange for a voluntary, honest review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Hide and Seek (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The mind is a deep a complex organ that science still struggles to fully comprehend, despite the countless hours of research and study that have been expended in unlocking the mysteries contained within.
In the new thriller Hide and Seek, audiences are introduced to Dr. David Callaway (Robert De Niro), a Psychologist who is struggling to help his daughter Emile (Dakota Fanning) after the suicide of her mother. David believes that the best option is to move from New York City to a quite area upstate where he can focus on being a father to his daughter, who has become withdrawn despite intense counseling.
Despite opposition from Emily’s therapist and family friend Katherine (Famke Janssen), David and Emily relocate to a scenic and quite location and hour from the city.
At first everything seems to be going well with the move and David meets an attractive young lady named Elizabeth (Elisabeth Shue), who watches over a little girl for another member of her family. Thinking that a friend will snap Emily from her state, David encourages Elizabeth to come to the house.
David is convinced the addition of a friend will encourage Emily to stop talking about an imaginary friend named Charlie who seems to have preoccupied the little girls time. David is convinced that Charlie is a creation of Emily’s psyche that will fade over time especially as she makes friends and copes with the loss of her mother.
Emily instead withdraws even further from people and a series of bizarre and violent events ensue with Emily insisting that Charlie is the reason behind all of them. As David struggles to deal with the ever increasing tension caused by Charlie, he soon becomes caught up in a situation beyond his control.
The setup for the film is good as your mind races with a myriad of possibilities and outcome. Sadly many of my scenarios, and I suspect most of the audience were better and more satisfying then the conclusion of the film. The film quickly degrades into an abundance of absurdities and situations that seem lifted from the Drama 101 textbook as well as a dozen other and better films in the genre.
While the cast does good work with what they have, it is unsatisfying to see talent like Shue and Janssen reduced to minor supporting characters when they could have brought so much more to the film. Worse yet is De Niro seems to be going through the motions as this brilliant and gifted actor is not given any material that will challenge him and let his brilliant method acting shine.
For the first half of the film it is a mostly enjoyable and intriguing film that does hold your attention. However once the so called surprises of the film are revealed and the film moves towards it’s conclusion, you cant help but think that you have been cheated and deserved a much better payoff for sitting through the first hour of the film. Days after seeing it, I am still stunned at how badly the film ended and how such a good premise and talented cast were horribly wasted on a film that had surprisingly no scares or tension as the audience at my press screening sat largely in silence throughout the film.
My advice, save this for a rental as it is at best, a movie of the week quality film.
In the new thriller Hide and Seek, audiences are introduced to Dr. David Callaway (Robert De Niro), a Psychologist who is struggling to help his daughter Emile (Dakota Fanning) after the suicide of her mother. David believes that the best option is to move from New York City to a quite area upstate where he can focus on being a father to his daughter, who has become withdrawn despite intense counseling.
Despite opposition from Emily’s therapist and family friend Katherine (Famke Janssen), David and Emily relocate to a scenic and quite location and hour from the city.
At first everything seems to be going well with the move and David meets an attractive young lady named Elizabeth (Elisabeth Shue), who watches over a little girl for another member of her family. Thinking that a friend will snap Emily from her state, David encourages Elizabeth to come to the house.
David is convinced the addition of a friend will encourage Emily to stop talking about an imaginary friend named Charlie who seems to have preoccupied the little girls time. David is convinced that Charlie is a creation of Emily’s psyche that will fade over time especially as she makes friends and copes with the loss of her mother.
Emily instead withdraws even further from people and a series of bizarre and violent events ensue with Emily insisting that Charlie is the reason behind all of them. As David struggles to deal with the ever increasing tension caused by Charlie, he soon becomes caught up in a situation beyond his control.
The setup for the film is good as your mind races with a myriad of possibilities and outcome. Sadly many of my scenarios, and I suspect most of the audience were better and more satisfying then the conclusion of the film. The film quickly degrades into an abundance of absurdities and situations that seem lifted from the Drama 101 textbook as well as a dozen other and better films in the genre.
While the cast does good work with what they have, it is unsatisfying to see talent like Shue and Janssen reduced to minor supporting characters when they could have brought so much more to the film. Worse yet is De Niro seems to be going through the motions as this brilliant and gifted actor is not given any material that will challenge him and let his brilliant method acting shine.
For the first half of the film it is a mostly enjoyable and intriguing film that does hold your attention. However once the so called surprises of the film are revealed and the film moves towards it’s conclusion, you cant help but think that you have been cheated and deserved a much better payoff for sitting through the first hour of the film. Days after seeing it, I am still stunned at how badly the film ended and how such a good premise and talented cast were horribly wasted on a film that had surprisingly no scares or tension as the audience at my press screening sat largely in silence throughout the film.
My advice, save this for a rental as it is at best, a movie of the week quality film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Pete’s Dragon is a staple of my childhood. It was one of the three movies I would always choose to watch. So, naturally, I was a little worried when I heard about the new movie earlier this year. The teaser trailer didn’t give much to go by, but it looked promising. I trying something new this year where I do not watch anything beyond the teaser trailer (believe me, it’s killing me not to watch the new Rogue One trailer), so that’s all I had going into this. And I was pleasantly surprised.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Taxi Driver (1976) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Perfect blend of Director, Star and Place
Dark, dirty, rainy, dangerous, foggy, grimy, glorious - all words that would describe New York City in the late 1960's/early 1970's.
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.