Search
Search results
Fitness Boot Camp
Health & Fitness and Sports
App
This app has an incredible 368 easy to follow Fitness Workouts including Kettlebell, Resistance...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Snore...
Based on a C.S. Forester novel The Good Shepherd, and a screenplay by Mr Tom Hanks himself, Greyhound is the latest movie to feature Hanks in the role of brave Captain, returning once more to World War II territory. Any hopes that this might be a return to the grand heights of Saving Private Ryan though are soon laid to rest.
Set in 1942, Hanks plays Captain Ernest Krause, responsible for one of only a handful of warships as they escort and protect an even larger number of merchant vessels making the journey across the Atlantic Ocean with vital supplies for England. They will be entering what’s known as ‘the black pit’ – a stretch of Ocean too far out at sea for any aerial cover to be provided by the countries on either side. For a few days, they will be on their own, and at the mercy of any German U-boats they may encounter.
Greyhound wastes no time in landing us right in the thick of it all, joining the crew as they enter the black pit, and sticking with them while they attempt to make it to relative safety on the other side. Obviously, it’s not long before a number of U-boats target the fleet of vessels and begin trying to pick them off in a tense game of cat and mouse at sea.
There is a LOT of nautical jargon in Greyhound and twenty minutes in, I was already feeling exhausted just trying to follow it all and gain any kind of enjoyment out of the movie. Despite throwing the occasion title up on screen to tell us which vessel we’re looking at out on the gloomy CGI seas, it’s also not always clear which ship is which, or who’s firing at who either. That attention to detailed dialogue really doesn’t let up one bit either, making what is only a 91 minute movie feel so much longer.
By throwing us straight into the action, we’re also given no time to learn or even care about any of the characters. Krause is only given a couple of brief flashback scenes, showing us with his partner two months earlier, played by Elizabeth Shue. Other than knowing this is his first Atlantic crossing, and that he is fully committed to the job in hand, refusing to eat any of the hot meals regularly brought to him by the ship’s cook, we’re provided very little information about our Captain.
The crew are also there just to fire off updates to their Captain and respond to his commands, providing no character development whatsoever for them either and giving us nothing to feel invested in, other than a desire for them all to make it safely to England.
With the focus of the movie entirely on the crew and setting of the Greyhound, we only hear from other characters via radio – calls for support from the other vessels, or psychological jaunts from the Germans on the U-boat. Again, by not giving us the viewpoint of any other side or vessel, it all makes for a very one dimensional and dull ride. Definitely not one of Tom Hanks finest.
Set in 1942, Hanks plays Captain Ernest Krause, responsible for one of only a handful of warships as they escort and protect an even larger number of merchant vessels making the journey across the Atlantic Ocean with vital supplies for England. They will be entering what’s known as ‘the black pit’ – a stretch of Ocean too far out at sea for any aerial cover to be provided by the countries on either side. For a few days, they will be on their own, and at the mercy of any German U-boats they may encounter.
Greyhound wastes no time in landing us right in the thick of it all, joining the crew as they enter the black pit, and sticking with them while they attempt to make it to relative safety on the other side. Obviously, it’s not long before a number of U-boats target the fleet of vessels and begin trying to pick them off in a tense game of cat and mouse at sea.
There is a LOT of nautical jargon in Greyhound and twenty minutes in, I was already feeling exhausted just trying to follow it all and gain any kind of enjoyment out of the movie. Despite throwing the occasion title up on screen to tell us which vessel we’re looking at out on the gloomy CGI seas, it’s also not always clear which ship is which, or who’s firing at who either. That attention to detailed dialogue really doesn’t let up one bit either, making what is only a 91 minute movie feel so much longer.
By throwing us straight into the action, we’re also given no time to learn or even care about any of the characters. Krause is only given a couple of brief flashback scenes, showing us with his partner two months earlier, played by Elizabeth Shue. Other than knowing this is his first Atlantic crossing, and that he is fully committed to the job in hand, refusing to eat any of the hot meals regularly brought to him by the ship’s cook, we’re provided very little information about our Captain.
The crew are also there just to fire off updates to their Captain and respond to his commands, providing no character development whatsoever for them either and giving us nothing to feel invested in, other than a desire for them all to make it safely to England.
With the focus of the movie entirely on the crew and setting of the Greyhound, we only hear from other characters via radio – calls for support from the other vessels, or psychological jaunts from the Germans on the U-boat. Again, by not giving us the viewpoint of any other side or vessel, it all makes for a very one dimensional and dull ride. Definitely not one of Tom Hanks finest.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Trying to climb a slippery pole.
As John Lennon’s lyrics go:
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Dark Lake in Books
Dec 24, 2017 (Updated Dec 24, 2017)
intriguing (2 more)
compelling
surprising
Rosalind Ryan, a popular yet mysterious teacher, is found dead by the local lake. She's been murdered, her body left floating with red roses surrounding her. Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock and her partner, Felix, are called in to investigate Rosalind's case. Nothing about Rosalind adds up--everyone seemed to like her, but no one really knew her. She lived in a cheap apartment, but clearly had expensive taste in wine and makeup. She was the youngest of four, with three brothers, one of with whom she'd quarreled recently. Her father, George, is ill and runs a large business conglomerate in Australia, yet seemed to adore his inscrutable daughter. As for Gemma, she has memories of Rosalind from their time together in high school, when the beautiful Rose seemed enigmatic even then. Gemma and Felix have their hands full, focusing on Rosalind's co-workers, students, family, and more. Who is responsible for the death of this lovely teacher?
This is an intriguing and compelling two part mystery, with the present-day case focusing on Rosalind, combined with flashes to Gemma's past, focusing on her history with her former boyfriend Jacob, who died as a teen. The majority of our story is told from Gemma's present-day point of view, but we get a few key snippets from the townspeople and occasionally Gemma's point of view flashes to the past.
I really liked Gemma as a narrator. The intersection of the case with her past was extremely well-done. I read some reviews where the readers didn't care for Gemma, but that wasn't the case for me, though I could understand, as the story wore on, how they came to that point of view. She doesn't always make the right decisions, and I'm intrigued to see what she'll be like in the next novel (Goodreads tell me this is the first book in the series). But for me, I identified with her in many ways and, because she was so well-written, really enjoyed the story from her point of view, even if I didn't always agree with her actions. It was also great to get to see a character dealing with the challenges of being female and a mother in a small police force--in a small town no less--in what seemed to be, overall, a fairly realistic fashion.
The story itself is great. There are several twists that really got me, so major kudos to Bailey. I read a lot of thrillers, and it's not always easy to surprise me! For a huge portion of this book, I had *no idea* where this was going to go, or who killed Rosalind. Several times I found myself genuinely shocked by the happenings and was completely enthralled by the story and Bailey's characters. (I also can't believe this is a debut novel - wow.) She does an excellent job at creating tension in the story and the characters, slowing unfurling plot points and details as we go along. This novel is truly a puzzle, the pieces fitting into place as we go along, and putting them together is a joy. It is so well-done and Bailey's weaving together the past and the present is excellent. I wound up really liking Gemma, and her boss Jonesy, and I'm quite excited this is a series. I can't wait to see where Bailey takes us (and Gemma) next. 4.5 stars.
This is an intriguing and compelling two part mystery, with the present-day case focusing on Rosalind, combined with flashes to Gemma's past, focusing on her history with her former boyfriend Jacob, who died as a teen. The majority of our story is told from Gemma's present-day point of view, but we get a few key snippets from the townspeople and occasionally Gemma's point of view flashes to the past.
I really liked Gemma as a narrator. The intersection of the case with her past was extremely well-done. I read some reviews where the readers didn't care for Gemma, but that wasn't the case for me, though I could understand, as the story wore on, how they came to that point of view. She doesn't always make the right decisions, and I'm intrigued to see what she'll be like in the next novel (Goodreads tell me this is the first book in the series). But for me, I identified with her in many ways and, because she was so well-written, really enjoyed the story from her point of view, even if I didn't always agree with her actions. It was also great to get to see a character dealing with the challenges of being female and a mother in a small police force--in a small town no less--in what seemed to be, overall, a fairly realistic fashion.
The story itself is great. There are several twists that really got me, so major kudos to Bailey. I read a lot of thrillers, and it's not always easy to surprise me! For a huge portion of this book, I had *no idea* where this was going to go, or who killed Rosalind. Several times I found myself genuinely shocked by the happenings and was completely enthralled by the story and Bailey's characters. (I also can't believe this is a debut novel - wow.) She does an excellent job at creating tension in the story and the characters, slowing unfurling plot points and details as we go along. This novel is truly a puzzle, the pieces fitting into place as we go along, and putting them together is a joy. It is so well-done and Bailey's weaving together the past and the present is excellent. I wound up really liking Gemma, and her boss Jonesy, and I'm quite excited this is a series. I can't wait to see where Bailey takes us (and Gemma) next. 4.5 stars.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma in Books
May 14, 2017
This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
‘Graffiti and scorch marks, echoes of small fires, decorated doorsteps. Golden Special Brew cans and crushed vodka bottles, bright as diamonds, collected in gutters. Front gardens were filled with mouldy paddling pools and, occasionally, a rust burnished shell of a car. I had never seen anything so beautiful, so many colours, before in grey Aberdeen.’
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Totally Toned Arms: Get Michelle Obama Arms in 21 Days in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Totally Toned Arms by Rylan Duggan, CSCS
Genre: Exercise, Nutrition
Rating: 5
(from the back) Since she burst into public consciousness, Michelle Obama has proudly displayed her lean, toned, sexy arms, which have become the envy of women everywhere…. Now certified personal trainer and body-sculpting authority Ryan Duggan presents his groundbreaking program designed to help you develop amazingly toned arms. This three-week program will boost your metabolism, burn fat, and build muscle.
Totally Toned Arms is a Totally Terrific program. It centers around burning fat the right way, building muscle the safe way, and boosting the metabolism the healthy way. It explains the different kinds of fat, the different problems you may have with fat-burning and muscle building, and explains things that you may worry about or question.
The concepts behind the processes in the book are very well explained, so even those who have no knowledge whatsoever can understand what is going on in their body when they follow this program.
The program itself is not that scary. It’s designed around simple exercises that anyone can do (yes, anyone). What makes them hard and what makes them work if anyone can do them? How fast, how many, and how hard you try. So who does this book cater to? Everyone—old, young, athlete, couch potato. Now it won’t leave you looking like a body builder, but it sure will make a difference. (of course, if you are a couch potato you’re going to have to work a little slower to build up. In a worst case scenario, you may have to do the program twice… and that’s not such a bad idea for anyone now is it?) There are black and white photographs and very clear instructions for the exercises.
In fact, you don’t even need a gym to do this program—all you really need is something to lean against, a stair or bench, a theraband (very inexpensive, and I recommend the medium or heavy. Not the super-heavy unless you’re an athlete of some kind), and a few hand held weights. In fact, you don’t have to buy hand held weights, you can do what I did as a kid—use cans of soup.
Speaking of soup… Totally Toned Arms doesn't just focus on exercises, it also has a nutrition program that targets what you eat, how much of it you eat, and how often you eat it. And water… Everyone knows you’re supposed to drink 8 cups a day, right? Well here’s something I learned from Totally Toned Arms—8 is the minimum for a properly functioning body. 10-12 is the recommended amount. How many of you drink that much water? I know I don’t… *winces guiltily* But I’m gonna try to start…
There’s also a 21-day plan for the exercises, and even meal plans (so you don’t have to get too creative).
With all this great stuff… the only thing it doesn’t have is after-work out stretches… which, as I learned from biking, ballet, gymnastics, even horse-back riding and just about every other PE activity I’ve done, is that stretching after exercising is crucial to healthy muscles. So if you go out and buy this book… stretch a little after your workout. And take a hot shower that night… You’ll need it if you want to be able to function two days later (no it’s not that bad. I’m being sarcastic. But you do understand, right? Stretch!!).
Genre: Exercise, Nutrition
Rating: 5
(from the back) Since she burst into public consciousness, Michelle Obama has proudly displayed her lean, toned, sexy arms, which have become the envy of women everywhere…. Now certified personal trainer and body-sculpting authority Ryan Duggan presents his groundbreaking program designed to help you develop amazingly toned arms. This three-week program will boost your metabolism, burn fat, and build muscle.
Totally Toned Arms is a Totally Terrific program. It centers around burning fat the right way, building muscle the safe way, and boosting the metabolism the healthy way. It explains the different kinds of fat, the different problems you may have with fat-burning and muscle building, and explains things that you may worry about or question.
The concepts behind the processes in the book are very well explained, so even those who have no knowledge whatsoever can understand what is going on in their body when they follow this program.
The program itself is not that scary. It’s designed around simple exercises that anyone can do (yes, anyone). What makes them hard and what makes them work if anyone can do them? How fast, how many, and how hard you try. So who does this book cater to? Everyone—old, young, athlete, couch potato. Now it won’t leave you looking like a body builder, but it sure will make a difference. (of course, if you are a couch potato you’re going to have to work a little slower to build up. In a worst case scenario, you may have to do the program twice… and that’s not such a bad idea for anyone now is it?) There are black and white photographs and very clear instructions for the exercises.
In fact, you don’t even need a gym to do this program—all you really need is something to lean against, a stair or bench, a theraband (very inexpensive, and I recommend the medium or heavy. Not the super-heavy unless you’re an athlete of some kind), and a few hand held weights. In fact, you don’t have to buy hand held weights, you can do what I did as a kid—use cans of soup.
Speaking of soup… Totally Toned Arms doesn't just focus on exercises, it also has a nutrition program that targets what you eat, how much of it you eat, and how often you eat it. And water… Everyone knows you’re supposed to drink 8 cups a day, right? Well here’s something I learned from Totally Toned Arms—8 is the minimum for a properly functioning body. 10-12 is the recommended amount. How many of you drink that much water? I know I don’t… *winces guiltily* But I’m gonna try to start…
There’s also a 21-day plan for the exercises, and even meal plans (so you don’t have to get too creative).
With all this great stuff… the only thing it doesn’t have is after-work out stretches… which, as I learned from biking, ballet, gymnastics, even horse-back riding and just about every other PE activity I’ve done, is that stretching after exercising is crucial to healthy muscles. So if you go out and buy this book… stretch a little after your workout. And take a hot shower that night… You’ll need it if you want to be able to function two days later (no it’s not that bad. I’m being sarcastic. But you do understand, right? Stretch!!).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Most Dangerous Place on Earth in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Mill Valley is the perfect little town, and Molly Nicoll is excited to start a teaching career in English at the local high school. However, when she starts up mid-year, she has no idea about a tragedy that occurred in her students' eighth grade year. To Miss Nicoll, these kids are in deep need of understanding and guidance, even if they are sometimes a bit rude and unfocused. There's Abby, the perfect student prepping for her Ivy League future, but also hiding a secret; Nick, an intelligent kid with a trick for every situation; Cally, a prominent player in the early tragedy, who now floats through school with the other hippie kids; Emma, a talented dancer who loves to let go and party on the weekends; Damon, who just wants to have fun; Ryan, a popular kid who hangs with Nick and Damon; Elizabeth, the most beautiful girl in school - and the one without any friends; and Dave, who is struggling with the weight of his parents' expectations. These kids have known each other for years, and their lives are shared in every way possible - in their small town, at school, and across all forms of social media.
I'd heard a lot of advance praise for this novel, and had put it on hold at my local library ages ago. I was excited to finally get a chance to read it, but upon finishing it, was left feeling conflicted. This is going to be yet another one of those lauded novels that everyone loves where I feel a bit "eh." Don't get me wrong: this is a well-written book--even a beautiful one at times--and it often tells a compelling and sometimes frightening story of kids growing up in suburbia. The novel starts with the gang in eighth grade and goes through their senior year. It's told in snippets from various students, as well as Miss Nicoll.
The problem, for me, is that it read more like a series of interconnected short stories than a novel. We get brief insights into a variety of students, but no real depth or insight into anyone. You're able to infer a lot about each and how their home life and past has affected them, but every student's piece leaves you wanting more, feeling unfinished. Even Miss Nicoll's role sort of trails off. It's a shame, because most of the teens are so clearly written that you can visualize them so well - they each stand out on the page, and each one could have commanded the book on their own. Instead, they come and go, and at times, the plot veers off into strange side stories that seem unnecessary or unbelievable.
This is one of those novels that terrifies me to have my children grow up, because it presents high school as one never-ending saga of bullying and partying. The rich, disaffected teens are abandoned by their similarly rich and disaffected parents and no one really seems to care about anything. Still, you find yourself getting into one kids' story, only to have the point of view turn and you're thrust into another student's life instead. By the end, I found myself frustrated, wanting to know more, and wishing for more finality to, well, everything. 3.5 stars
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I'd heard a lot of advance praise for this novel, and had put it on hold at my local library ages ago. I was excited to finally get a chance to read it, but upon finishing it, was left feeling conflicted. This is going to be yet another one of those lauded novels that everyone loves where I feel a bit "eh." Don't get me wrong: this is a well-written book--even a beautiful one at times--and it often tells a compelling and sometimes frightening story of kids growing up in suburbia. The novel starts with the gang in eighth grade and goes through their senior year. It's told in snippets from various students, as well as Miss Nicoll.
The problem, for me, is that it read more like a series of interconnected short stories than a novel. We get brief insights into a variety of students, but no real depth or insight into anyone. You're able to infer a lot about each and how their home life and past has affected them, but every student's piece leaves you wanting more, feeling unfinished. Even Miss Nicoll's role sort of trails off. It's a shame, because most of the teens are so clearly written that you can visualize them so well - they each stand out on the page, and each one could have commanded the book on their own. Instead, they come and go, and at times, the plot veers off into strange side stories that seem unnecessary or unbelievable.
This is one of those novels that terrifies me to have my children grow up, because it presents high school as one never-ending saga of bullying and partying. The rich, disaffected teens are abandoned by their similarly rich and disaffected parents and no one really seems to care about anything. Still, you find yourself getting into one kids' story, only to have the point of view turn and you're thrust into another student's life instead. By the end, I found myself frustrated, wanting to know more, and wishing for more finality to, well, everything. 3.5 stars
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018
Well acted, directed and written...and dour
The advertisement for BEAUTIFUL BOY says that it is a "heartbreaking and inspiring experience of survival, relapse and recovery of a family coping with addiction".
Heartbreaking, yes. Survival, relapse? Yes. Inspiring? Not so much.
Telling the tale of the true story of David and Nic Sheff (based on their memoirs), BEAUTIFUL BOY stars Steve Carrell as David and the wonderful Timothee Chalamet as Nic. It chronicles their relationship and David's attempt to help his son who has descended into addiction to drugs up to (and including) crystal meth and heroin. This is a tough tale, told rather unflinchingly and with great love and affection. It is also grim and dower. The highs are not really all that high and the lows are really, really, really low.
Which makes for a tough film to watch - it's a very good film - written, directed and acted well - but it's a tough film to sit through.
Let's start with the performances of the two leads. We view most of this film through the eyes of the Father, played by Steve Carrell. We start the film "in progress", meaning that Carrell's character of David has already come to the realization that his child is in the grips of something that he might not be able to get out of. Because of that, Carrell's character starts sad and somber and goes down from there. It is a well acted performance, but he is not asked to do much more than be sad and somber, punctuated by moments of frustration and anger and is somewhat overshadowed by the showier role and performance by Chalamet as the drug-addicted son.
I have now seen Chalamet in 4 films - INTERSTELLAR, LADYBIRD, CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and now BEAUTIFUL BOY, and in each one of these he was an actor that required your attention. He has a way of drawing you into his character's thoughts and feelings without saying or doing much. He is a "quiet" performer with a strength that is appealing and is no different in this film He was nominated for an Oscar for CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and I will not be surprised if his name is called again this year.
Joining Carrell and Chalamet are Amy Ryan and Maura Tierney as Nic's Mother and Step-Mother. Both are equal to the task that is given them - to be supportive, worried and sad - all at the same time. It would have been interesting to flesh out these roles in this tale, but that would have made this film something different than what it is intended to be - a tale of a father's inability to help his son, no matter how hard he tries.
Ultimately, the issue with this film is there is no variety to it. It stays, for the most part, on one emotional note throughout the course of it's 2 hour running time - somber and sad. That constant feeling of dourness makes this rather slow running film seem even slower, causing quite a bit of rustling and shifting in the chairs.
It's an important film about an important subject - I just wish they would have varied the pitch of it from time to time. Well acted, well written - and dour.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heartbreaking, yes. Survival, relapse? Yes. Inspiring? Not so much.
Telling the tale of the true story of David and Nic Sheff (based on their memoirs), BEAUTIFUL BOY stars Steve Carrell as David and the wonderful Timothee Chalamet as Nic. It chronicles their relationship and David's attempt to help his son who has descended into addiction to drugs up to (and including) crystal meth and heroin. This is a tough tale, told rather unflinchingly and with great love and affection. It is also grim and dower. The highs are not really all that high and the lows are really, really, really low.
Which makes for a tough film to watch - it's a very good film - written, directed and acted well - but it's a tough film to sit through.
Let's start with the performances of the two leads. We view most of this film through the eyes of the Father, played by Steve Carrell. We start the film "in progress", meaning that Carrell's character of David has already come to the realization that his child is in the grips of something that he might not be able to get out of. Because of that, Carrell's character starts sad and somber and goes down from there. It is a well acted performance, but he is not asked to do much more than be sad and somber, punctuated by moments of frustration and anger and is somewhat overshadowed by the showier role and performance by Chalamet as the drug-addicted son.
I have now seen Chalamet in 4 films - INTERSTELLAR, LADYBIRD, CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and now BEAUTIFUL BOY, and in each one of these he was an actor that required your attention. He has a way of drawing you into his character's thoughts and feelings without saying or doing much. He is a "quiet" performer with a strength that is appealing and is no different in this film He was nominated for an Oscar for CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and I will not be surprised if his name is called again this year.
Joining Carrell and Chalamet are Amy Ryan and Maura Tierney as Nic's Mother and Step-Mother. Both are equal to the task that is given them - to be supportive, worried and sad - all at the same time. It would have been interesting to flesh out these roles in this tale, but that would have made this film something different than what it is intended to be - a tale of a father's inability to help his son, no matter how hard he tries.
Ultimately, the issue with this film is there is no variety to it. It stays, for the most part, on one emotional note throughout the course of it's 2 hour running time - somber and sad. That constant feeling of dourness makes this rather slow running film seem even slower, causing quite a bit of rustling and shifting in the chairs.
It's an important film about an important subject - I just wish they would have varied the pitch of it from time to time. Well acted, well written - and dour.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)