Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated New Year's Eve (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
If you ask me, holiday movies have lost their way over the past few years. Not that there haven’t been any good holiday movies recently, but let’s face it… “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” is no “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I think that New Year’s Eve brings us back to the feel good holiday movies that the film industry has been missing.
The cast in this is huge. Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Carla Gugino, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Sofia Vergara, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Hilary Swank and Josh Duhamel are all players in this film. This is only the tip of the ice berg too as there are many smaller roles with cameos from big names.
New Year’s Eve follows several different story lines that are all connected in some way, whether small or big, the stories do intertwine. Michelle Pfieffer plays a meek, timid office worker who finally has had it with her miserable job. She enlists the help of bike messenger Zac Efron to help her complete all the tasks on her “bucket list” type resolution list. Robert De Niro plays a dying cancer patient whose wish is to see the ball drop one last time, and Halle Berry is the nurse that is attending him. Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel play an expectant couple who are in a race with another couple to have the first baby of the New Year in order to win the Hospital’s contest and receive $25,000.
Katherine Heigl plays a chef for a catering company that has landed a huge gig at one of the largest parties in New York. Sofia Vergara is her sous chef who is humorously fanatic over Jon Bon Jovi. Jon Bon Jovi plays a version of himself (a musician) who happens to be Katherine Heigl’s ex-boyfriend. Ashton Kutcher is very anti-New Year’s and during his protest of the holiday ends up becoming stuck in an elevator with Lea Michele, a new tenant in his building who is on her way to a new job as a backup singer.
Sarah Jessica Parker is a single mother who gets to spend the New Year with her daughter, played by Abigail Breslin. But Abigail has her sights set on spending New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Hilary Swank plays the newly appointed Vice President of the Times Square Alliance, which for the intents of this movie means that she’s in charge of the Times Square ball dropping and runs into a few problems along the way. Josh Duhamel is desperately trying to make it from his cousin’s wedding to New York City in time to give an important speech at his company’s party, as well as make another very important meeting.
I found this movie to be a great date movie. It’s cute and funny, but without being overly obnoxious as some holiday movies try to be. It is very clever in its story telling, and makes great use of the stellar cast. Though I personally could have done without the Robert De Niro story line, I really enjoyed the film overall. It is great to see a wholesome Holiday movie that does not have to rely on gags and clichés (not too much anyway).
The cast in this is huge. Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Carla Gugino, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Sofia Vergara, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Hilary Swank and Josh Duhamel are all players in this film. This is only the tip of the ice berg too as there are many smaller roles with cameos from big names.
New Year’s Eve follows several different story lines that are all connected in some way, whether small or big, the stories do intertwine. Michelle Pfieffer plays a meek, timid office worker who finally has had it with her miserable job. She enlists the help of bike messenger Zac Efron to help her complete all the tasks on her “bucket list” type resolution list. Robert De Niro plays a dying cancer patient whose wish is to see the ball drop one last time, and Halle Berry is the nurse that is attending him. Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel play an expectant couple who are in a race with another couple to have the first baby of the New Year in order to win the Hospital’s contest and receive $25,000.
Katherine Heigl plays a chef for a catering company that has landed a huge gig at one of the largest parties in New York. Sofia Vergara is her sous chef who is humorously fanatic over Jon Bon Jovi. Jon Bon Jovi plays a version of himself (a musician) who happens to be Katherine Heigl’s ex-boyfriend. Ashton Kutcher is very anti-New Year’s and during his protest of the holiday ends up becoming stuck in an elevator with Lea Michele, a new tenant in his building who is on her way to a new job as a backup singer.
Sarah Jessica Parker is a single mother who gets to spend the New Year with her daughter, played by Abigail Breslin. But Abigail has her sights set on spending New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Hilary Swank plays the newly appointed Vice President of the Times Square Alliance, which for the intents of this movie means that she’s in charge of the Times Square ball dropping and runs into a few problems along the way. Josh Duhamel is desperately trying to make it from his cousin’s wedding to New York City in time to give an important speech at his company’s party, as well as make another very important meeting.
I found this movie to be a great date movie. It’s cute and funny, but without being overly obnoxious as some holiday movies try to be. It is very clever in its story telling, and makes great use of the stellar cast. Though I personally could have done without the Robert De Niro story line, I really enjoyed the film overall. It is great to see a wholesome Holiday movie that does not have to rely on gags and clichés (not too much anyway).
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated You Are Not Alone in Books
Dec 29, 2019
I've been a fan of Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen since I read their novel The Wife Between Us as well as their other book An Anonymous Girl. Hendricks and Pekkanen are definitely a force to be reckoned with when it comes to writing. When I was offered a chance to read their new book You Are Not Alone, I didn't even have to think twice about saying yes!
The plot of You Are Not Alone sounded intriguing. Shay Miller is just existing. Through witnessing a tragic event, Shay meets the Moore sisters - Cassandra and Jane who are extremely glamorous. Shay is beyond thrilled to be friends with these two amazing women. However, things aren't always what they seem, and this is what puts Shay's life in immediate danger.
I felt that the world building of You Are Not Alone was done beautifully. The novel takes place in New York, and although I've never been, Hendricks and Pekkanen made me feel like I was instantly transported to that setting every time I started reading. The pacing is a bit up and down throughout the book though. However, this wasn't that fast paced thriller I was expecting it to be. I felt as if there was something missing overall from You Are Not Alone. I felt satiated with Hendricks and Pekkanen's last two novels, but there was something that felt a bit flat in this new novel. I felt as if the big unpredictable plot twist was also missing. Yes, there are a few plot twists throughout You Are Not Alone, but the actual plot twist didn't wow me like in the authors' previous books. Don't get me wrong, You are Not Alone is not a horrible read. In fact, it is quite interesting. I just felt as if Hendricks and Pekkanen rushed through You Are Not Alone. I will say that I admired all the statistics throughout the book. Hendricks and Pekkanen really did their research for this novel, and it shows.
I felt that some of the characters of You Are Not Alone lacked a bit of depth. The main character, Shay, felt a bit too one dimensional at times especially for the majority of the book. However, towards the end, she does become quite the character, and I enjoyed her tenacity to get to the bottom of what was happening. I did enjoy Cassandra and Jane, and I felt like they were fairly fleshed out, but I would have liked a bit more backstory on them such as how they rose to be such prominent adults. I would have liked to know about how they were able to become the perfect manipulators. I enjoyed the character of Daphne, but I would have liked to get to know her more. I would have also liked to read more about Stacey too. Valerie and Amanda were the only ones who felt the realest. They both seemed pretty fleshed out and realistic. I felt like I could relate to Amanda and her thought process.
Trigger warnings for You Are Not Alone include rape and attempted rape (not graphic), alcohol use, manipulation (including gaslighting), some violence, profanity (although not much), murder and attempted murder, and suicide.
Overall, You Are Not Alone is a decent read. Despite its flaws, the book does have some redeeming qualities such as an interesting plot and a fantastic background when it comes to the statistics mentioned in the book. I would still recommend You Are Not Alone by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 17+ who are fans of psychological thrillers.
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with an eBook of You Are Not Alone by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot of You Are Not Alone sounded intriguing. Shay Miller is just existing. Through witnessing a tragic event, Shay meets the Moore sisters - Cassandra and Jane who are extremely glamorous. Shay is beyond thrilled to be friends with these two amazing women. However, things aren't always what they seem, and this is what puts Shay's life in immediate danger.
I felt that the world building of You Are Not Alone was done beautifully. The novel takes place in New York, and although I've never been, Hendricks and Pekkanen made me feel like I was instantly transported to that setting every time I started reading. The pacing is a bit up and down throughout the book though. However, this wasn't that fast paced thriller I was expecting it to be. I felt as if there was something missing overall from You Are Not Alone. I felt satiated with Hendricks and Pekkanen's last two novels, but there was something that felt a bit flat in this new novel. I felt as if the big unpredictable plot twist was also missing. Yes, there are a few plot twists throughout You Are Not Alone, but the actual plot twist didn't wow me like in the authors' previous books. Don't get me wrong, You are Not Alone is not a horrible read. In fact, it is quite interesting. I just felt as if Hendricks and Pekkanen rushed through You Are Not Alone. I will say that I admired all the statistics throughout the book. Hendricks and Pekkanen really did their research for this novel, and it shows.
I felt that some of the characters of You Are Not Alone lacked a bit of depth. The main character, Shay, felt a bit too one dimensional at times especially for the majority of the book. However, towards the end, she does become quite the character, and I enjoyed her tenacity to get to the bottom of what was happening. I did enjoy Cassandra and Jane, and I felt like they were fairly fleshed out, but I would have liked a bit more backstory on them such as how they rose to be such prominent adults. I would have liked to know about how they were able to become the perfect manipulators. I enjoyed the character of Daphne, but I would have liked to get to know her more. I would have also liked to read more about Stacey too. Valerie and Amanda were the only ones who felt the realest. They both seemed pretty fleshed out and realistic. I felt like I could relate to Amanda and her thought process.
Trigger warnings for You Are Not Alone include rape and attempted rape (not graphic), alcohol use, manipulation (including gaslighting), some violence, profanity (although not much), murder and attempted murder, and suicide.
Overall, You Are Not Alone is a decent read. Despite its flaws, the book does have some redeeming qualities such as an interesting plot and a fantastic background when it comes to the statistics mentioned in the book. I would still recommend You Are Not Alone by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 17+ who are fans of psychological thrillers.
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with an eBook of You Are Not Alone by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Tabula Rasa (Tabula Rasa, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I was extremely curious about Tabula Rasa when I found out what it meant (Latin: Scraped Tablet. AKA, a newborn basically.) I also thought it would be a really interesting read I mean, girl has a tragic past, and is basically a lab rat in a procedure to erase those memories. Oh, and what's even more intriguing? Most of the "rats" are delinquents. I suppose from a delinquent's view, one would want to erase memories. Better than sitting in juvie, right? :p
It's certainly a cause for curiosity. I mean, we're reading the story from a possible criminal! I know I shouldn't be excited, but can you blame me? I've never actually read a story from a delinquent! ^o^
Not to burst any exciting bubbles bubbling up, but truth is, Sarah, our main character, isn't. That was highly disappointing when I found out. Instead, I found out she was some idol of sorts in New York, famous for uncovering a scam. Um... not too exciting. Plus, she seems much too fearless. I could have sworn she wasn't afraid of death even throughout the entire book. If there's one question I want to ask Sarah, it's "Are you even afraid of anything?"
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGUfnIbJtyY/U5yh6n3z6iI/AAAAAAAADe4/BU4P9O2rlTg/s1600/giphy+(12).gif"; border="0">
During the earlier parts of the book though, I sort of wanted to just toss Tabula Rasa aside and mark it as DNF. It felt a little too creepy, and confusing. The creepy part probably worked to an advantage, seeing how the surgery was quite detailed. *shudders*
<blockquote>Improvising seems familiar. Like it's my style.</blockquote>
Now the confusing part, that was just randomly thrown in. And I mean the quote. Not me randomly throwing the word confusing around and about. Sarah's going to a tool closet and putting things in her pocket. I'm not sure that's improvising. She's not making anything from what I read, aside from noticing a door. Does noticing a door count as improvising?
The romance between Thomas and Sarah. Really odd. Just... really odd. I felt like Thomas was trying a bit too hard on being funny at the beginning. Later he tends to be more "relaxed" and the humor felt more natural. But for a hacker with a father formerly in the Russian Intelligence Agency do they call it RIA? Thomas just seems too carefree. It was as though hacking just isn't... him. I suppose a new career is on the horizons for said character.
I did learn some new things though. I'm done with truth serums. What's with authors after Veronica Roth throwing serums around? They're popping up in so many places. O_o Oh, and apparently it actually snows in Hawaii. In the mountains. Wait, there are mountains in Hawaii? MIND = BLOWN.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_L4F_cUFsRc/U5yiXj5ftDI/AAAAAAAADfA/n9f9CgNd_H4/s1600/giphy+(13).gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
The Bourne Identity? I haven't read it myself, even though that sounds really familiar. Divergent? I'm not too sure. Even the folks of Dauntless are afraid of something. I guess the former's more of a bull's eye with Tabula Rasa than the latter. Tabula Rasa reminded me more of Nikita, Au Revoir Crazy European Chick, and apparently something else I can't remember with all the action and secret plots/schemes (it has something to do with operations).
------------------------
Advanced review copy provided by EgmontUSA for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
It's certainly a cause for curiosity. I mean, we're reading the story from a possible criminal! I know I shouldn't be excited, but can you blame me? I've never actually read a story from a delinquent! ^o^
Not to burst any exciting bubbles bubbling up, but truth is, Sarah, our main character, isn't. That was highly disappointing when I found out. Instead, I found out she was some idol of sorts in New York, famous for uncovering a scam. Um... not too exciting. Plus, she seems much too fearless. I could have sworn she wasn't afraid of death even throughout the entire book. If there's one question I want to ask Sarah, it's "Are you even afraid of anything?"
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGUfnIbJtyY/U5yh6n3z6iI/AAAAAAAADe4/BU4P9O2rlTg/s1600/giphy+(12).gif"; border="0">
During the earlier parts of the book though, I sort of wanted to just toss Tabula Rasa aside and mark it as DNF. It felt a little too creepy, and confusing. The creepy part probably worked to an advantage, seeing how the surgery was quite detailed. *shudders*
<blockquote>Improvising seems familiar. Like it's my style.</blockquote>
Now the confusing part, that was just randomly thrown in. And I mean the quote. Not me randomly throwing the word confusing around and about. Sarah's going to a tool closet and putting things in her pocket. I'm not sure that's improvising. She's not making anything from what I read, aside from noticing a door. Does noticing a door count as improvising?
The romance between Thomas and Sarah. Really odd. Just... really odd. I felt like Thomas was trying a bit too hard on being funny at the beginning. Later he tends to be more "relaxed" and the humor felt more natural. But for a hacker with a father formerly in the Russian Intelligence Agency do they call it RIA? Thomas just seems too carefree. It was as though hacking just isn't... him. I suppose a new career is on the horizons for said character.
I did learn some new things though. I'm done with truth serums. What's with authors after Veronica Roth throwing serums around? They're popping up in so many places. O_o Oh, and apparently it actually snows in Hawaii. In the mountains. Wait, there are mountains in Hawaii? MIND = BLOWN.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_L4F_cUFsRc/U5yiXj5ftDI/AAAAAAAADfA/n9f9CgNd_H4/s1600/giphy+(13).gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
The Bourne Identity? I haven't read it myself, even though that sounds really familiar. Divergent? I'm not too sure. Even the folks of Dauntless are afraid of something. I guess the former's more of a bull's eye with Tabula Rasa than the latter. Tabula Rasa reminded me more of Nikita, Au Revoir Crazy European Chick, and apparently something else I can't remember with all the action and secret plots/schemes (it has something to do with operations).
------------------------
Advanced review copy provided by EgmontUSA for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Jul 17, 2018
Sandra Bullock stars as Debbie Ocean, sister of Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the previous Oceans movies. She begins the movie in jail, being released on parole and promising to go straight. She has 45 dollars in her pocket and manages to get to New York, scam herself some free makeup and a hotel room, and pretty much everything else she needs. She's clearly just like her brother, able to con her way to getting whatever she wants.
After that it's all a bit of an incoherent blur for a while. She's got a plan, she knows people who can help, they know people that can help, so they all start joining forces and forming some kind of plan, starting with an old accomplice, Lou (Cate Blanchett). The sloppy plot building is papered over with cool music, witty dialogue and snappy editing techniques similar to those in the far superior Ocean's 11. It's a frustrating and dull start to the movie.
Once the team of girls are all together though and they begin working through their plan, things loosen up a bit and are a bit more enjoyable. The heist they're planning is to steal a very expensive Cartier necklace from the neck of movie star Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway) while she attends New York's Met Gala, and under the watchful gaze of a team of security guys. With the help of a hacker (Rihanna), a fashion designer (Helena Bonham Carter), a pickpocket (Awkwafina), a jeweller (Mindy Kaling) and another old con partner (Sarah Paulson), the details of the heist are slowly refined - security cameras hacked, the necklace analysed and recreated via 3D printing. When it comes to the heist itself, it all plays enjoyably enough, but everything goes far too smoothly, with no real tension or suspense or any suggestion that they might not pull it off. Once again, it just feels inferior compared to Ocean's 11.
Sandra Bullock is the only one here displaying real screen presence, which is a real shame when you consider the talent involved. Cate Blanchett feels underused and Anne Hathaway is the only other actress making any real impact. Everyone else just feels wasted, too restricted to the roles they need to carry out in order to get the job done, with not much else going on.
We didn't really need another Ocean's movie. The quality of the previous series diminished with each one anyway and although I'm all up for the refreshing change of an all female heist movie, I felt this would have been much better overall without the whole 'Ocean' connection and the need to live up to the previous movies.
After that it's all a bit of an incoherent blur for a while. She's got a plan, she knows people who can help, they know people that can help, so they all start joining forces and forming some kind of plan, starting with an old accomplice, Lou (Cate Blanchett). The sloppy plot building is papered over with cool music, witty dialogue and snappy editing techniques similar to those in the far superior Ocean's 11. It's a frustrating and dull start to the movie.
Once the team of girls are all together though and they begin working through their plan, things loosen up a bit and are a bit more enjoyable. The heist they're planning is to steal a very expensive Cartier necklace from the neck of movie star Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway) while she attends New York's Met Gala, and under the watchful gaze of a team of security guys. With the help of a hacker (Rihanna), a fashion designer (Helena Bonham Carter), a pickpocket (Awkwafina), a jeweller (Mindy Kaling) and another old con partner (Sarah Paulson), the details of the heist are slowly refined - security cameras hacked, the necklace analysed and recreated via 3D printing. When it comes to the heist itself, it all plays enjoyably enough, but everything goes far too smoothly, with no real tension or suspense or any suggestion that they might not pull it off. Once again, it just feels inferior compared to Ocean's 11.
Sandra Bullock is the only one here displaying real screen presence, which is a real shame when you consider the talent involved. Cate Blanchett feels underused and Anne Hathaway is the only other actress making any real impact. Everyone else just feels wasted, too restricted to the roles they need to carry out in order to get the job done, with not much else going on.
We didn't really need another Ocean's movie. The quality of the previous series diminished with each one anyway and although I'm all up for the refreshing change of an all female heist movie, I felt this would have been much better overall without the whole 'Ocean' connection and the need to live up to the previous movies.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.