Search
Search results
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) in Movies
May 28, 2021
Paul Walker reprises his role as Brian O'Conner as he's recruited to find out how a drug dealer is getting his ill gotten gains out of the country, using the talent of street racing.
I think that 2 Fast 2 Furious is actually slightly better than the first film (the Fast and the Furious), it has many of the same tropes and ideas of the first film, the street racing, cars and crime and it seems to have a better balance between the main elements. In both films Brian is tasked with infiltrating a criminal organisation with the task of finding out information and, from a narrative prospective 2 Fast seems to make a better job of this.
There is slightly less time given over to actual street racing but this is replaced with car chases which seem to use more police cars than 'The Blues Brothers'.
There is some time given over to character development as we find out more about Brian's past with the introduction of his old friend, Roman Pearce which gives us a bit more information as to his actions at the end of the first film.
Brian's relationship with the polices is surprisingly similar to the first film, even though Brian is now a wanted convict he is still aids and trust him. We also have the agent who doesn't trust Brian, this time in the form of customs Agent Markhan which basically gives us the same police set up the first film.
2 Fast 2 Furious does a good job of not being a clone of it's predecessor whilst still keeping the cars, the speed, the races and chases. There are a couple of scenes at the start that are similar to the first film but these are to help re introduce Brian and set the tone of the film. If you liked the first one then you should give the sequel a watch. (But you probably already know that as this is an old film 😊 )
I think that 2 Fast 2 Furious is actually slightly better than the first film (the Fast and the Furious), it has many of the same tropes and ideas of the first film, the street racing, cars and crime and it seems to have a better balance between the main elements. In both films Brian is tasked with infiltrating a criminal organisation with the task of finding out information and, from a narrative prospective 2 Fast seems to make a better job of this.
There is slightly less time given over to actual street racing but this is replaced with car chases which seem to use more police cars than 'The Blues Brothers'.
There is some time given over to character development as we find out more about Brian's past with the introduction of his old friend, Roman Pearce which gives us a bit more information as to his actions at the end of the first film.
Brian's relationship with the polices is surprisingly similar to the first film, even though Brian is now a wanted convict he is still aids and trust him. We also have the agent who doesn't trust Brian, this time in the form of customs Agent Markhan which basically gives us the same police set up the first film.
2 Fast 2 Furious does a good job of not being a clone of it's predecessor whilst still keeping the cars, the speed, the races and chases. There are a couple of scenes at the start that are similar to the first film but these are to help re introduce Brian and set the tone of the film. If you liked the first one then you should give the sequel a watch. (But you probably already know that as this is an old film 😊 )
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
Another fantastic entry into Tarantino's legacy
If there's one thing that springs to mind after watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is that's it's not particularly user friendly, it's not easily consumed.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 15, 2020
A lot of squawking birds
Although not saying much, Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn was one of the best thing in the lacklustre D.C. outing “Suicide Squad” of 2016. Now, she returns in her own vehicle. Jared Leto’s Joker is a thing of the past (clearly he wasn’t keen on dredging up the past for even a cameo in this one).
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
The premise of Jojo Rabbit is a bold one, and something that could have very easily been executed terribly on-screen.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Seize the Night (Dark-Hunter, #5) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Another absolutely wonderful addition to the Dark-Hunter series - I loved it! Tabitha was way better than I expected (I was worried she would be too much) and Valerius was as great as I had hoped. What can I say? I love tortured heroes, and he's one of the best. I felt so much for him and hated how horrid the others treated him for no good reason - other than being judgmental @$$es anyway, especially Kyrian. Now I don't remember much about <i>Night Pleasures</i> for some reason, probably because it is my least favorite in the series, but I thought Kyrian was such a you-know-what with how he treated Valerius. I mean, come on, he was just a five-year-old for crying out loud. Jerk. Same goes with Zarek, but I understand that a bit more. But really, couldn't these idiots have gotten over something that happened 2,000 years ago, instead of acting like children? Grow up already and face facts, he was just a kid who didn't do anything to Kyrian, tried to help Zarek, and was born a Roman. Poor guy. He never knew kindness until Tabitha.
Closer to the end there were some real shockers and since Nick was featured in <i>Night Pleasures</i>, I need to get my hands on that book to re-read it, so I can reacquaint myself to him and the story. Maybe then I'd like it better and be able to remember more from it. I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who has not read it yet, but this is one well-paced and plotted book! :)
As much as I loved the book, I was rather disappointed with the ending. It was rushed and was a good thirty or more pages shorter than other Dark-Hunter books. I felt that there needed to be more. The truce was rather lame and anti-climatic and so was the soul thing (or whatever it should be called) with Tabitha and Valerius. However, I loved the epilogue, and overall it is one of my faves of the series, I just wish more justice could have been done to the end of Valerius's story.
Closer to the end there were some real shockers and since Nick was featured in <i>Night Pleasures</i>, I need to get my hands on that book to re-read it, so I can reacquaint myself to him and the story. Maybe then I'd like it better and be able to remember more from it. I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who has not read it yet, but this is one well-paced and plotted book! :)
As much as I loved the book, I was rather disappointed with the ending. It was rushed and was a good thirty or more pages shorter than other Dark-Hunter books. I felt that there needed to be more. The truce was rather lame and anti-climatic and so was the soul thing (or whatever it should be called) with Tabitha and Valerius. However, I loved the epilogue, and overall it is one of my faves of the series, I just wish more justice could have been done to the end of Valerius's story.
Molly J (Cover To Cover Cafe) (106 KP) rated The Masterpiece in Books
Feb 27, 2019
I've only read Redeeming Love and the Marta's Legacy books by Ms. Rivers. Her work is amazing with those books. They have all the feels within them and just make you want to come back for more. So, when I saw she was releasing The Masterpiece, I didn't pass on it. I was anxious to be taken to a writing style that only Ms. Rivers knows how to do. I was absolutely pleased with all that I felt with this book!
This book has amazing characters. Roman and Grace are created with such depth and complexity. They were true-to-life and really nestled into my soul. The way they interacted, the way their story unfolds on the pages, really shined for me. As someone who was in Honors Art 4 for four years of highschool, I always fall for books that center around the world of art. I could feel Roman's artistic ways flow freely off the pages. And Grace, being a single mom, really nudged at me. I love when I connect with the characters on a deeper level.
This book is beyond 5 stars. I wasn't able to put it down once I picked it up. The pages kept turning, the feelings kept being felt. I smiled, I cried, I smiled again. The inspiration that Ms. Rivers weaves into this romance novel is incredible. It really brings to light the ultimate Masterpiece from above. If you are looking for a book that will be easy reading, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will make you laugh throughout, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will sweep you off your feet, spin you in a million directions, twist your soul, and throw you down with a bam, this is absolutely the book for you. You'll think about this book long after you've closed the cover. Well done, Ms. Rivers! Fantabulous job!
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Publisher/Tyndale Blog Network and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
This book has amazing characters. Roman and Grace are created with such depth and complexity. They were true-to-life and really nestled into my soul. The way they interacted, the way their story unfolds on the pages, really shined for me. As someone who was in Honors Art 4 for four years of highschool, I always fall for books that center around the world of art. I could feel Roman's artistic ways flow freely off the pages. And Grace, being a single mom, really nudged at me. I love when I connect with the characters on a deeper level.
This book is beyond 5 stars. I wasn't able to put it down once I picked it up. The pages kept turning, the feelings kept being felt. I smiled, I cried, I smiled again. The inspiration that Ms. Rivers weaves into this romance novel is incredible. It really brings to light the ultimate Masterpiece from above. If you are looking for a book that will be easy reading, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will make you laugh throughout, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will sweep you off your feet, spin you in a million directions, twist your soul, and throw you down with a bam, this is absolutely the book for you. You'll think about this book long after you've closed the cover. Well done, Ms. Rivers! Fantabulous job!
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Publisher/Tyndale Blog Network and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
StorybookConfectionary (1 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 9, 2018
The pace is supposed to feel languid like the summer vacation they are having. (11 more)
The characters are developed early on, like Oliver's knowledge of etymology that would be a cliché of the "protagonist as genius" had it not been a simply test.
Elio's name comes from 'helios' or sun and fits his personality in the sense that he is generous with his time, brilliant by definition of his current state of youth in mind and body, and he is restless in love.
The peach scene is heartbreaking.
The fireplace is a cinematographic style we don't see a lot as an Ameeican audience, where the camera stays in one place and we look through Elios for a long time. It should feel discomforting.
Elios' girl approaches him first even though she recognizes he used her and even when she said she was most afraid of getting hurt. She tells him she's sorry to see him sad, that she loves him, and then extends her hand for a reconciliation.
Elios takes her hand only when she promises her friendship is forever. So while romance is fleeting and he has the courage to proceed, he cannot give up the commitment of duration as prerequisite in a friendship.
The flies throughout the movie feel natural to the countryside but can also signify the attraction to: the sweetness of fruit, the rotting of fruit, and the indiscriminatory chances that warmth gives to living things.
These flies deserve an additional block for their amount of screentime, a motif of desire that obstructs the viewer's sight and buzzes us into a haze. We are, unbeknownst to ourselves, directed towards empathy for the characters.
Romance should be prolonged. Teased until it hits a climax and cannot be resisted anymore. Elio and everyone else hits a note of ecstasy once Oliver gives into the beauty of a body.
It's amazing how this story is founded on and driven by the conversations between Greek philosophy and Roman conquests. The Greeks thought sculpture could answer their question about knowledge/beauty.
Romance, because it ends, remains so good, nostalgic, and desirable.
Summer love
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Do You Love in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Tiger Warrior (Jack Howard #4) in Books
Nov 26, 2019
The Tiger Warrior follows archaeologist and adventurer Jack Howard as he follows a tantalising clue that perhaps some escaped Roman legionaries had found themselves pitched against the bodyguard of the First Emperor of China and one had taken refuge in the jungles of India.
This might sound far-fetched but Gibbins knows his archaeology and comes up with a plausible (if tenuous) story to make this work. The story is then taken up at the end of the 19th century in India when Howard's great great grandfather is part of the British Royal Engineers Corps trying to push roads - and hence British rule - into the jungle. He stumbles across an old temple that contains a secret.
The story roves around the the world showing us some incredible - but real - historic sites across Asia. Genuine books and records are quoted to back up the (modern day) Howard's quest to find out what happened - to both the Romans and his antecedant. Everything has very solid historical underpinnings with the more fantastic elements of the story cleverly weaved between them.
I did enjoy the book but it wasn't an unqualified success. There isn't really much menace, threat or drama in what happens to Jack Howard and his associates as they follow the past (told in a series of flashback chapters), uncovering clues one step at a time. Yes there are 'bad guys' but they seem quite ineffectual and the 'big boss' is in fact never seen at all but only mentioned in passing towards the end of the book. Judging by the notes from the author this is a very personal book - the character and story of Jack's ancestor in India is very much based on his own forebear - and this limits the scope for making the pieces fit into a pleasing whole.
That isn't to say I didn't enjoy reading it - as a subtle way of introducing surprising archaeological facts it works well (I didn't know that Ancient Rome traded with India but apparently so) and some of the set pieces are gripping to read. I will certainly be finding another Jack Howard book to read, but I suspect this was too personal a project for my first taste, which is s shame.
This might sound far-fetched but Gibbins knows his archaeology and comes up with a plausible (if tenuous) story to make this work. The story is then taken up at the end of the 19th century in India when Howard's great great grandfather is part of the British Royal Engineers Corps trying to push roads - and hence British rule - into the jungle. He stumbles across an old temple that contains a secret.
The story roves around the the world showing us some incredible - but real - historic sites across Asia. Genuine books and records are quoted to back up the (modern day) Howard's quest to find out what happened - to both the Romans and his antecedant. Everything has very solid historical underpinnings with the more fantastic elements of the story cleverly weaved between them.
I did enjoy the book but it wasn't an unqualified success. There isn't really much menace, threat or drama in what happens to Jack Howard and his associates as they follow the past (told in a series of flashback chapters), uncovering clues one step at a time. Yes there are 'bad guys' but they seem quite ineffectual and the 'big boss' is in fact never seen at all but only mentioned in passing towards the end of the book. Judging by the notes from the author this is a very personal book - the character and story of Jack's ancestor in India is very much based on his own forebear - and this limits the scope for making the pieces fit into a pleasing whole.
That isn't to say I didn't enjoy reading it - as a subtle way of introducing surprising archaeological facts it works well (I didn't know that Ancient Rome traded with India but apparently so) and some of the set pieces are gripping to read. I will certainly be finding another Jack Howard book to read, but I suspect this was too personal a project for my first taste, which is s shame.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...