Search
Search results
Curtis Sittenfeld's engaging novel looks at Hillary Rodham's life through this prism: what if she hadn't married Bill Clinton? In 1971, as Hillary Rodham graduates from Wellesley, she delivers a commencement speech that gains national prominence. She heads to Yale Law school--an intelligent woman, filled with the desire to help those in need. It is there she meets Bill Clinton, a fellow law student. The connection between the two is instant--for the first time, Hillary feels she has found someone who appreciates her both emotionally and physically. In real life, Hillary and Bill head to Arkansas. He proposes three times, and she finally accepts, becoming Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Eleven Lines to Somewhere in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I am extremely happy and excited to be part of the blog tour for Eleven Lines to Somewhere by Alyson Rudd. Thank you to the team at HQ - for sending me a copy in exchange for an honest review. Check out the other book bloggers that are part of the tour as well:
Synopsis:
Everyone is searching for love. Sometimes we just take our own route to find it.
Ryan sees a young woman on the tube on his way to work, and he can't stop looking at her. Attracted and intrigued, he's set to find out more about this mysterious passenger that shares the tube with him.
Sylvie keeps travelling the underground, unable to leave for reasons unknown to Ryan. He hasn't been dating for ten years, when he was at university and the love of his life died.
But for some reason, he feels he needs to help Sylvie. In a world of missed opportunities and what-ifs, a connection has been made.
My Thoughts:
This is the second book I have read by Alyson Rudd, with the first one being The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. That book intrigued me, and when I saw Eleven Lines to Somewhere being published - I had to know and compare them.
At the beginning, I was intrigued, knowing what the synopsis is. We meet Ryan and Sylvie (separately), and we get a small glimpse into their lives. In the beginning, Ryan's story with his family and friends is more talked about. I liked getting to know Ryan, very slowly throughout the first half of the book. He is a very intriguing character himself, going through a personal time, as well as making very controversial decisions to get to know Sylvie better.
I liked Sylvie's story and her connection to the underground. It was very intriguing to me to read and understand how some moments in life can let us become something that we can't help but be. That a certain experience can cause such a need for Sylvie to action. I loved the psychological aspect of her characterisation, and how the trauma was handled.
Once Ryan and Sylvie got to know each other, the pace of the book changed, I felt. The pace was very slow, but the scenes moved very quickly in time.
Even though I loved Ryan and Sylvie as separate characters, I couldn't love them as a couple.
I felt that there was chemistry and romance missing, and somehow their connection to each other was based on the need to help the other one with their own trauma. For me, that being a single reason to love someone makes me think a person is in such a relationship to only feel better about themselves. Look - I helped someone, I am a better person now. But that's just my humble opinion.
There were a lot of side characters that had their own storylines - which I really enjoyed. A lot of drama and twists happened with them, which was quite enjoyable to read. Some characters in the end were thrown into the story abruptly, almost as if for convenience to the story line. But it worked well in the end.
I really enjoyed this story. Still a 4 star, but I enjoyed it more than The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. If you love contemporary books with a lot of characters, this will be a very good pick for you!
Synopsis:
Everyone is searching for love. Sometimes we just take our own route to find it.
Ryan sees a young woman on the tube on his way to work, and he can't stop looking at her. Attracted and intrigued, he's set to find out more about this mysterious passenger that shares the tube with him.
Sylvie keeps travelling the underground, unable to leave for reasons unknown to Ryan. He hasn't been dating for ten years, when he was at university and the love of his life died.
But for some reason, he feels he needs to help Sylvie. In a world of missed opportunities and what-ifs, a connection has been made.
My Thoughts:
This is the second book I have read by Alyson Rudd, with the first one being The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. That book intrigued me, and when I saw Eleven Lines to Somewhere being published - I had to know and compare them.
At the beginning, I was intrigued, knowing what the synopsis is. We meet Ryan and Sylvie (separately), and we get a small glimpse into their lives. In the beginning, Ryan's story with his family and friends is more talked about. I liked getting to know Ryan, very slowly throughout the first half of the book. He is a very intriguing character himself, going through a personal time, as well as making very controversial decisions to get to know Sylvie better.
I liked Sylvie's story and her connection to the underground. It was very intriguing to me to read and understand how some moments in life can let us become something that we can't help but be. That a certain experience can cause such a need for Sylvie to action. I loved the psychological aspect of her characterisation, and how the trauma was handled.
Once Ryan and Sylvie got to know each other, the pace of the book changed, I felt. The pace was very slow, but the scenes moved very quickly in time.
Even though I loved Ryan and Sylvie as separate characters, I couldn't love them as a couple.
I felt that there was chemistry and romance missing, and somehow their connection to each other was based on the need to help the other one with their own trauma. For me, that being a single reason to love someone makes me think a person is in such a relationship to only feel better about themselves. Look - I helped someone, I am a better person now. But that's just my humble opinion.
There were a lot of side characters that had their own storylines - which I really enjoyed. A lot of drama and twists happened with them, which was quite enjoyable to read. Some characters in the end were thrown into the story abruptly, almost as if for convenience to the story line. But it worked well in the end.
I really enjoyed this story. Still a 4 star, but I enjoyed it more than The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. If you love contemporary books with a lot of characters, this will be a very good pick for you!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Wonderful - and Family Friendly!
Like most of us, when I first saw the trailer for the Ryan Reynolds comedy, FREE GUY (well over a year ago), I thought this looked like a bad “money grab” that will quickly come and go.
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Encanto (2021) in Movies
Nov 15, 2021
In a magical area of Columbia surrounded by mountains; exists a magical town watched over by the Madrigal family. The family lives in a magical home that is the center point for the community and is loved by the community.
In the new Disney film “Encanto”; audiences are told the story of how the family patriarch founded the community with a magical candle and how upon reaching a certain age; all members of her family receive a “gift” from the magical house which gives them an ability to help the community. From being able to heal with cooking to talking to the animals and super strength; the family Madrigal is the beloved pillar of the community.
To every rule there is an exception and young Mirabel (Stephanie Beatriz); is the only member of her family not to receive a gift of powers. As such she is seen as a pariah from the family and believes she is more tolerated than loved especially compared to her siblings who are endowed with amazing abilities.
Things change when a new member of the family goes through the gifting ceremony; the first one since Mirabel was denied, and receives an amazing gift and basks in the love of the town and family. Mirabel has a vision of the house cracking and falling into ruin. She tries to warn her family but they see the house in its usual pristine condition and blame Mirabel for being jealous for not having a gift and wanting to take attention away from those who do.
Mirabel believes in what she saw and learns that members of her family may know more than they admit and that they hold the key to saving the day. This leads to a quest to find the absent Uncle Bruno (John Leguizamo); who has been absent as many believe his gift of prophecy only leads to bad things coming to fruition and has gone into hiding as a result.
Mirabel is soon forced to look deep inside herself and find her strength to overcome her own insecurities and save her family and community.
The film has great animation and is awash in color as it brings the magical community to life. The music is lively and is what you would expect from Lin- Manuel Miranda as it brings joy and energy to the film that is in keeping with the Disney tradition of amazing music in their animated films.
The biggest issue that I had with the film is that while fun and entertaining; the story never took the next step forward and at times dragged. This is not to say that “Encanto” is a bad film as it is lively, colorful, and fun; however it does not reach the heights of Disney classics like “Frozen” “Moana” and other classics. Think of it this way; “Lilo & Stitch” is a fine animated film but few would hold it in the same regard as “The Lion King”, “Beauty and the Beast”, and “The Little Mermaid”.
In the end “Encanto” offers a fun experience for the family and fans to enjoy and shows how even when they do not hit the top of the mountain; Disney is still the Gold Standard in animation.
4 stars out of 5
In the new Disney film “Encanto”; audiences are told the story of how the family patriarch founded the community with a magical candle and how upon reaching a certain age; all members of her family receive a “gift” from the magical house which gives them an ability to help the community. From being able to heal with cooking to talking to the animals and super strength; the family Madrigal is the beloved pillar of the community.
To every rule there is an exception and young Mirabel (Stephanie Beatriz); is the only member of her family not to receive a gift of powers. As such she is seen as a pariah from the family and believes she is more tolerated than loved especially compared to her siblings who are endowed with amazing abilities.
Things change when a new member of the family goes through the gifting ceremony; the first one since Mirabel was denied, and receives an amazing gift and basks in the love of the town and family. Mirabel has a vision of the house cracking and falling into ruin. She tries to warn her family but they see the house in its usual pristine condition and blame Mirabel for being jealous for not having a gift and wanting to take attention away from those who do.
Mirabel believes in what she saw and learns that members of her family may know more than they admit and that they hold the key to saving the day. This leads to a quest to find the absent Uncle Bruno (John Leguizamo); who has been absent as many believe his gift of prophecy only leads to bad things coming to fruition and has gone into hiding as a result.
Mirabel is soon forced to look deep inside herself and find her strength to overcome her own insecurities and save her family and community.
The film has great animation and is awash in color as it brings the magical community to life. The music is lively and is what you would expect from Lin- Manuel Miranda as it brings joy and energy to the film that is in keeping with the Disney tradition of amazing music in their animated films.
The biggest issue that I had with the film is that while fun and entertaining; the story never took the next step forward and at times dragged. This is not to say that “Encanto” is a bad film as it is lively, colorful, and fun; however it does not reach the heights of Disney classics like “Frozen” “Moana” and other classics. Think of it this way; “Lilo & Stitch” is a fine animated film but few would hold it in the same regard as “The Lion King”, “Beauty and the Beast”, and “The Little Mermaid”.
In the end “Encanto” offers a fun experience for the family and fans to enjoy and shows how even when they do not hit the top of the mountain; Disney is still the Gold Standard in animation.
4 stars out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 12, 2022
It is hard to believe it has been 25 years since “Scream” premiered and in doing so; brought new life into the slasher genre which had become stale due to an abundance of direct to DVD and cable releases combined with many uninspired and stale theatrical releases.
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023) in Movies
May 31, 2023
Life as a teenager is never easy and when you are gifted with the superhuman abilities of a spider and lead a double life as a student and crime fighter; life gets even harder.
Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) is finding it even harder to hide his secret from his family who has grown concerned that his erratic behavior is more than the usual teenage angst.
In another earth, Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld) deals with her Police officer father desperately hunting down her alter-ego believing that she is a killer which drives a wedge between them as Gwen desperately tries to find her way forward.
In “Spider-Man Across the Spider-Verse audiences learn that what one perceives as reality is often just the corner of a much larger picture and when Miles confronts what he dismisses as a “Villain of the Week” in a quirky enemy known as The Spot (Jason Schwartzman), starts a campaign against Spider-Man, he soon finds that the threat is much larger than he expected and secretly follows a visiting Gwen into an another Earth where his actions soon draw the attention of a larger temporal Spider squad.
Motivated by his feelings for Gwen and a desire to do good, Miles looks to undo the damage that the Spot is causing across various Earths and learns that each one has its own version of Spider-man or Woman to protect it.
At this point the film goes into overdrive as Miles learns more about his past and how he became Spider-Man but also learns more about the cost that his powers enact on his life and those around him. There are plenty of special moments and guest appearances that follow from the more obscure to the mainstream and the range of emotions from the audience at the press screening as they reacted to the film showed they were deeply engaged and loving it.
The film does take a darker turn and does end in a cliffhanger which sets up the next film very well but also may be a bit darker than younger viewers might want. That being said; I enjoyed this film far more than I did the prior film. I found the animation style a bit off-putting as the jerky way the characters moved was a bit much over the length of a feature film. This time around there is a mix of animation styles throughout and at times in the same frame which may be a bit hard for some as the film does come at the viewer with waves of flashing lights, sounds, and animations that very cleverly mimic reading a comic complete with small boxes to define various characters from time to time.
The film runs nearly two and a half hours and did seem to go on a bit long at times but thanks to the great voice-acting and strong cast as well as engaging storyline I found myself eagerly looking forward to the next film.
I first saw a rough cut of a scene at Cinemacon in 2022 and it was amazing seeing the final scene near the opening of the film as it was a rare instance of a film surpassing expectations and delivers the storyline and action with a good dose of solid characters that fans will love.
4.5 stars out of 5
Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) is finding it even harder to hide his secret from his family who has grown concerned that his erratic behavior is more than the usual teenage angst.
In another earth, Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld) deals with her Police officer father desperately hunting down her alter-ego believing that she is a killer which drives a wedge between them as Gwen desperately tries to find her way forward.
In “Spider-Man Across the Spider-Verse audiences learn that what one perceives as reality is often just the corner of a much larger picture and when Miles confronts what he dismisses as a “Villain of the Week” in a quirky enemy known as The Spot (Jason Schwartzman), starts a campaign against Spider-Man, he soon finds that the threat is much larger than he expected and secretly follows a visiting Gwen into an another Earth where his actions soon draw the attention of a larger temporal Spider squad.
Motivated by his feelings for Gwen and a desire to do good, Miles looks to undo the damage that the Spot is causing across various Earths and learns that each one has its own version of Spider-man or Woman to protect it.
At this point the film goes into overdrive as Miles learns more about his past and how he became Spider-Man but also learns more about the cost that his powers enact on his life and those around him. There are plenty of special moments and guest appearances that follow from the more obscure to the mainstream and the range of emotions from the audience at the press screening as they reacted to the film showed they were deeply engaged and loving it.
The film does take a darker turn and does end in a cliffhanger which sets up the next film very well but also may be a bit darker than younger viewers might want. That being said; I enjoyed this film far more than I did the prior film. I found the animation style a bit off-putting as the jerky way the characters moved was a bit much over the length of a feature film. This time around there is a mix of animation styles throughout and at times in the same frame which may be a bit hard for some as the film does come at the viewer with waves of flashing lights, sounds, and animations that very cleverly mimic reading a comic complete with small boxes to define various characters from time to time.
The film runs nearly two and a half hours and did seem to go on a bit long at times but thanks to the great voice-acting and strong cast as well as engaging storyline I found myself eagerly looking forward to the next film.
I first saw a rough cut of a scene at Cinemacon in 2022 and it was amazing seeing the final scene near the opening of the film as it was a rare instance of a film surpassing expectations and delivers the storyline and action with a good dose of solid characters that fans will love.
4.5 stars out of 5
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.