Search
Search results
Emma Montague is an Englishwoman living in the U.S. She left behind her parents as soon as she could: feeling trapped by her mother's snobbery and outgoing personality, so different from Emma's quiet and introverted self. But life in the high-powered banking world in New York City isn't exactly for Emma either. She finds everyone so false: women who only care about clothes and finding a man, too many nights at bars, and pressure to use dating apps. Her one long-term relationship winds up nowhere, and so Emma finds herself on the move again: this time to the beach town of Westport, CT. She takes a break from banking and finds herself renting a house in this seaside town. Emma quickly finds herself falling for landlord, Dominic, a bartender in Westport. A father to six-year-old Jesse, Dominic seems to be the opposite of Emma in every way. Emma isn't sure that the two could ever really be together, but she can't seem to stop her heart from falling for Dominic. Are they meant to be?
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy & Punch (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
This had been low on my list of things to see at the film festival but several people recommended it to me so I decided to take a look.
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
In the town of Seaside, which is nowhere near the sea, Judy lives in something less than domestic bliss with Punch and their baby. Punch's shows are a hit and he's got dreams of grand things, but Judy is the real brains behind the outfit though he'd never admit it.
Judy leaves Punch in charge of the baby while she runs errands but despite the responsibility he gets drunk and an unforgivable accident occurs. In his effort to cover his tracks Punch puts his wife on a journey that leads her to a community in the woods where she can plan her revenge on him for his evil ways.
The film has a very heavy sense of fairy tale about it and certainly the setting wouldn't be out of place in almost any tale you could bring to mind. The location and buildings are perfect and yet somehow didn't seem quite right, this is very much an afterthought though, as I watched it I thought the depiction was good.
The parallels shown between the story of the couple's home life and the puppet show are clear throughout, my only worry is that you might not get a good understanding of that if you aren't aware of the traditional Punch and Judy shows. This wouldn't have been something I'd have thought about before but more and more I talk about things with people and the response is "I've never heard of that"... god I feel old.
Damon Herriman has taken off his Manson mask for this one and I found him to be a very good lead as Punch. He manages to capture the devious side of Punch, and honestly, anyone who can pull off the scene with the baby with a straight face deserves recognition... and yes, I do feel kind of bad for laughing.
Mia Wasikowska (who also starred in Blackbird, review coming soon) had two very different versions of Judy to play. Judy-1 gives us an outgoing and resilient woman, Judy-2.0 is angry and vengeful though there's a happiness in her once she gets to know the community who rescue her. This second incarnation wasn't entirely to my liking, I much preferred the earlier more lighthearted take on her. I can see why the change in her demeanour was fitting it didn't quite feel like a true transformation.
I enjoyed Judy & Punch, it was something different to watch which I always find to be an interesting experience but I'm not sure I'd need to see it again. I was entertained while I sat through it but apart from one scene there was nothing I see myself remembering further down the line.
Just a couple of honourable mentions: I enjoyed the music, the jazzed up classical pieces fit in nicely, and the dog wearing its own ruff? Adorable!
What you should do
I don't think you need to rush out and see this one but if you happen to come across it at some point it might be worth watching.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It has to be an impish little dog wearing a ruff... because what else would a sensible person pick?!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
Cecilia Kass (Elizabeth Moss) is a woman living in fear. Despite living a life of wealth and privilege in a seaside home; she is ready to take drastic steps in her life.
Cecilia is trying to escape from her controlling and abusive husband who despite being considered a wealthy genius in the field of Optics; has made her life a living hell and forces her to make a daring escape that has her barely getting away with the help of her sister Alice (Harriett Dyer).
The film picks up two weeks later where Cecilia is hiding with a friend of her sister Officer James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Cecilia is scared to even leave the house and do simple tasks such as checking the mailbox and is livid when her sister comes to visit as she is sure that her husband will find her by tracking her Sister.
Alice informs Cecilia that her husband has killed himself and she is now free to live without fear. Cecilia gets a letter informing her that she is to receive 100K a month to the sum of five million dollars as part of her husband’s will. The fact that nobody should have her mailing address does seem odd to her as does that fact that the estate is being handled by her ex’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman).
With her new wealth Cecilia gifts James and also sets up a school fund for Sydney and begins to emerge from her shell.
It is around this time that unusual things begin to happen to her. A lost item from the night of her escape shows up and a mysterious kitchen fire starts. Cecelia also wakes up to find the covers off the bed and what appears to be something unseen standing on the blankets when she attempts to pull them up.
When she expresses her concerns to James that her husband is alive and exacting revenge, both he and Tom ignore her and when things begin to escalate, Cecilia is the one who starts to look more and more unstable as the tormenting continues and her life spins out of control.
The film is Written and Directed by Leigh Whannell who rose to prominence as one of the co-creators of the “SAW” franchise. The film is the perfect example of how to do a film of this sort as it is very clever in how it is paced and allows for the suspense to build without relying on many of the standard Horror Film staples.
The film is also good about having things happen before it pulls back so it is not an extended series of intense moments but several incidents between the tension and setup.
The cast is very good and what is amazing is that the film was made for a $7 million dollar budget yet looks every bit of a major studio film.
There are some interesting twists along the way as while I was able to predict two of them; the others were a very nice surprise.
It is so refreshing to see a film like this come along as in many ways it can help redefine the Horror genre and proves that you can make a quality movie that is also scary and intense.
I for one hope we see more from this franchise in the near future.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Cecilia is trying to escape from her controlling and abusive husband who despite being considered a wealthy genius in the field of Optics; has made her life a living hell and forces her to make a daring escape that has her barely getting away with the help of her sister Alice (Harriett Dyer).
The film picks up two weeks later where Cecilia is hiding with a friend of her sister Officer James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Cecilia is scared to even leave the house and do simple tasks such as checking the mailbox and is livid when her sister comes to visit as she is sure that her husband will find her by tracking her Sister.
Alice informs Cecilia that her husband has killed himself and she is now free to live without fear. Cecilia gets a letter informing her that she is to receive 100K a month to the sum of five million dollars as part of her husband’s will. The fact that nobody should have her mailing address does seem odd to her as does that fact that the estate is being handled by her ex’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman).
With her new wealth Cecilia gifts James and also sets up a school fund for Sydney and begins to emerge from her shell.
It is around this time that unusual things begin to happen to her. A lost item from the night of her escape shows up and a mysterious kitchen fire starts. Cecelia also wakes up to find the covers off the bed and what appears to be something unseen standing on the blankets when she attempts to pull them up.
When she expresses her concerns to James that her husband is alive and exacting revenge, both he and Tom ignore her and when things begin to escalate, Cecilia is the one who starts to look more and more unstable as the tormenting continues and her life spins out of control.
The film is Written and Directed by Leigh Whannell who rose to prominence as one of the co-creators of the “SAW” franchise. The film is the perfect example of how to do a film of this sort as it is very clever in how it is paced and allows for the suspense to build without relying on many of the standard Horror Film staples.
The film is also good about having things happen before it pulls back so it is not an extended series of intense moments but several incidents between the tension and setup.
The cast is very good and what is amazing is that the film was made for a $7 million dollar budget yet looks every bit of a major studio film.
There are some interesting twists along the way as while I was able to predict two of them; the others were a very nice surprise.
It is so refreshing to see a film like this come along as in many ways it can help redefine the Horror genre and proves that you can make a quality movie that is also scary and intense.
I for one hope we see more from this franchise in the near future.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Fins ain’t what they used to be.
OK, OK, so I must be about the last person in the country – at least, those who want to see this at the cinema – who actually has! Maybe its something about the summer slipping into autumn that made me crave for one last summer blockbuster hoorah! In any case, I feel like a bit of a traitor, since I was very scathing about this film’s trailer when it came out. But – do you know – as a brainless piece of popcorn entertainment, I quite enjoyed it!
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Louise (64 KP) rated Whisper to Me in Books
Jul 2, 2018
***This review may contain spoilers***
I won this book in a Goodreads giveaway, which let me tell you I was so pleased, I mean who doesn’t like free books?
First off, I need to mention how beautiful the cover is, the colours are amazing (I am a fan of pinks and purples) and the summer evening with fairground in the background just makes you feel like this is going be an epic summer read with loads of fluffyness…..How wrong was I! This book is DARK!
This book is told as a massive email, 535 pages long! I feel sorry for the guy she is writing to.
The story follows Cassie, she is writing an email to this boy that she met over the summer and tries to explain the reasons behind her actions and to hopefully win him back. The seaside resort that Cassie lives in always brings tourists and Teens looking for summer work, for the past couple of years there have been prostitutes/escorts that go missing but no evidence is left so the killer is at large.In Cassie’s favourite spot at the beach she finds a human foot washed up, after the shock of this discovery she starts hearing a voice inside her head, she is convinced it’s one of the prostitutes and starts investigating and taking matters into her own hands. Along the way she meets this guy and they start hanging out, but she is unable to reveal her secret.
I am going to start off by saying that I didn’t enjoy this book and there are several reasons. I hate having to write negative reviews as this author has taken a lot of time to write this and make a success of it but there were too many flaws for my liking.
First off the book is way to long for a contemporary, it could have easily been 200 pages less,there was a lot of waffle.
I didn’t like the characters!The father suffered from PTSD after being in the Navy SEALS, but to me he felt abusive and really harsh and scary, he was so protective of Cassie and would have these sudden outbursts that I actually feared for her. Cassie was really timid, a bit of a pushover. The guy she has a romance with (you never find out his name) is boring and dull.
HA HA, that brings me on to the romance. It was awful, it was awkward but not in a good way,in a cringe OMG why you doing this way. There was no spark, no angst..nada.
It uses *****for the swear words and that got really tedious in the end and sometimes I didn’t even know what swear word to use,you can fill in the blanks yourself.
Moving on to the things I liked, I enjoyed the focus on the mental health aspect, Cassie is diagnosed with some type of Schizophrenia and she has two different forms of treatment, she has a psychiatrist who just wants to pump drugs in her to solve the problem and then she has cognitive behavioural therapy and you can tell the difference between the good therapist and the bad one. I have read quite a few books about mental health like Depression, Bi-polar and anxiety but none with hearing voices so it was interesting to read something different.
The writing was good it was told in different formats and had some sarcasm and was definitely easy to read.
The ending, I was so damn disappointed with the ending! nothing got resolved, I literally felt I had been robbed. It was like Lake got bored and finished the story early and didn’t tie the ends.
I originally gave this book a 2.5 stars but after reflecting on this I have lowered it to 1.5-2 stars and one of those stars is for the cover.
I won this book in a Goodreads giveaway, which let me tell you I was so pleased, I mean who doesn’t like free books?
First off, I need to mention how beautiful the cover is, the colours are amazing (I am a fan of pinks and purples) and the summer evening with fairground in the background just makes you feel like this is going be an epic summer read with loads of fluffyness…..How wrong was I! This book is DARK!
This book is told as a massive email, 535 pages long! I feel sorry for the guy she is writing to.
The story follows Cassie, she is writing an email to this boy that she met over the summer and tries to explain the reasons behind her actions and to hopefully win him back. The seaside resort that Cassie lives in always brings tourists and Teens looking for summer work, for the past couple of years there have been prostitutes/escorts that go missing but no evidence is left so the killer is at large.In Cassie’s favourite spot at the beach she finds a human foot washed up, after the shock of this discovery she starts hearing a voice inside her head, she is convinced it’s one of the prostitutes and starts investigating and taking matters into her own hands. Along the way she meets this guy and they start hanging out, but she is unable to reveal her secret.
I am going to start off by saying that I didn’t enjoy this book and there are several reasons. I hate having to write negative reviews as this author has taken a lot of time to write this and make a success of it but there were too many flaws for my liking.
First off the book is way to long for a contemporary, it could have easily been 200 pages less,there was a lot of waffle.
I didn’t like the characters!The father suffered from PTSD after being in the Navy SEALS, but to me he felt abusive and really harsh and scary, he was so protective of Cassie and would have these sudden outbursts that I actually feared for her. Cassie was really timid, a bit of a pushover. The guy she has a romance with (you never find out his name) is boring and dull.
HA HA, that brings me on to the romance. It was awful, it was awkward but not in a good way,in a cringe OMG why you doing this way. There was no spark, no angst..nada.
It uses *****for the swear words and that got really tedious in the end and sometimes I didn’t even know what swear word to use,you can fill in the blanks yourself.
Moving on to the things I liked, I enjoyed the focus on the mental health aspect, Cassie is diagnosed with some type of Schizophrenia and she has two different forms of treatment, she has a psychiatrist who just wants to pump drugs in her to solve the problem and then she has cognitive behavioural therapy and you can tell the difference between the good therapist and the bad one. I have read quite a few books about mental health like Depression, Bi-polar and anxiety but none with hearing voices so it was interesting to read something different.
The writing was good it was told in different formats and had some sarcasm and was definitely easy to read.
The ending, I was so damn disappointed with the ending! nothing got resolved, I literally felt I had been robbed. It was like Lake got bored and finished the story early and didn’t tie the ends.
I originally gave this book a 2.5 stars but after reflecting on this I have lowered it to 1.5-2 stars and one of those stars is for the cover.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s an air of quiet death in this house”.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln“) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I'll Be Your Blue Sky in Books
Feb 26, 2018
Revisits former characters (3 more)
Features unexpected twists and turns
Beautiful characters that fit together well
Funny and touching
Lovely look at some favorite characters
The weekend of her wedding, Clare Hobbes meets an elderly woman, Edith Herron, at the venue. While they only have a few brief conversations, they provide Clare with the insight and courage she so badly needs. So much that she finds the strength to call off her wedding and return home alone. A few weeks later, Clare receives some sad and surprising news: Edith has passed away and left Clare a seaside home in Delaware. Desperately seeking a place to reevaluate her life, Clare decamps to the "Blue Sky House" and there begins to learn more about Edith and the remarkable life she led. This includes the discovery of two ledgers--one depicting a list of the guests who stayed at Edith's home when it was a beach guesthouse and another, "shadow" ledger, with mysterious notations. With the help of her former boyfriend, now best friend Dev Tremain, Clare starts to unravel Edith's brave and fascinating past. Along the way, she starts to get closer to working out more about herself as well.
I absolutely adore Marisa de los Santos and was really excited to see she had written another book picking up on the characters first introduced in Love Walked In: A Novel and Belong to Me. Both still hold a place of honor on the bookshelves of my home. Still, Goodreads told me it was nearly ten years since I'd read those gems. Considering I can forget a lot of what I've read a few months ago, it took a little remembering and time to get back into the characters. There's a lot to keep track of in the beginning. Still, once I got into the groove, it was like being back with old friends.
Getting to know more about Clare--all grown up now--is lovely. You find yourself drawn to her immediately. Her finance, Zach, made me nervous from the start, and in many ways, the novel can be a little stressful, between Clare navigating Zach, learning about what Edith was up to, and just some of the general topics of the novel. I always know a book is well-written when I find myself getting nervous on the characters' behalf.
The book generally alternates chapters between Clare and the story of Edith, the woman she meets at her wedding venue. Edith's story mainly takes place in the 1940s and 1950s, and I found myself always wishing for more and more of her tale, as she's a fascinating character in her own right. As Clare moves into Edith's old home and starts to investigate the woman's past, we learn a little more about her through Clare and Dev's sleuthing. It's a very effective format, and I found the book surprisingly suspenseful, with several unexpected twists and turns thrown in along the way.
Indeed, I was never really sure where this one was going. It meanders a bit and kept surprising me as it did. There are points where the sadness can be really hard and heartbreaking (in a wow, this novel is incredibly well-written and I feel as if these characters are real way). All the characters fit together so well and come to life before you--no surprise to anyone who has read a Marisa de los Santos novel before. It's so easy to get lost in the world she creates for us. At other times, I just found myself laughing, as Clare and Dev, for instance, could just be so funny and real.
In the end, I just wound up really loving this one. I was along for the ride wherever Clare and her gang were going to take me. I loved her, I loved Edith, and now I'd wait ten years for another book without any issue whatsoever. It's a lovely book about connections and about the family we have and the family we make. It's about love (very appropriate that I finished it on Valentine's Day). Thanks for revisiting these characters, Ms. de los Santos. I didn't know I needed them again, but I'm glad you did. 4+ stars.
I I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/
I absolutely adore Marisa de los Santos and was really excited to see she had written another book picking up on the characters first introduced in Love Walked In: A Novel and Belong to Me. Both still hold a place of honor on the bookshelves of my home. Still, Goodreads told me it was nearly ten years since I'd read those gems. Considering I can forget a lot of what I've read a few months ago, it took a little remembering and time to get back into the characters. There's a lot to keep track of in the beginning. Still, once I got into the groove, it was like being back with old friends.
Getting to know more about Clare--all grown up now--is lovely. You find yourself drawn to her immediately. Her finance, Zach, made me nervous from the start, and in many ways, the novel can be a little stressful, between Clare navigating Zach, learning about what Edith was up to, and just some of the general topics of the novel. I always know a book is well-written when I find myself getting nervous on the characters' behalf.
The book generally alternates chapters between Clare and the story of Edith, the woman she meets at her wedding venue. Edith's story mainly takes place in the 1940s and 1950s, and I found myself always wishing for more and more of her tale, as she's a fascinating character in her own right. As Clare moves into Edith's old home and starts to investigate the woman's past, we learn a little more about her through Clare and Dev's sleuthing. It's a very effective format, and I found the book surprisingly suspenseful, with several unexpected twists and turns thrown in along the way.
Indeed, I was never really sure where this one was going. It meanders a bit and kept surprising me as it did. There are points where the sadness can be really hard and heartbreaking (in a wow, this novel is incredibly well-written and I feel as if these characters are real way). All the characters fit together so well and come to life before you--no surprise to anyone who has read a Marisa de los Santos novel before. It's so easy to get lost in the world she creates for us. At other times, I just found myself laughing, as Clare and Dev, for instance, could just be so funny and real.
In the end, I just wound up really loving this one. I was along for the ride wherever Clare and her gang were going to take me. I loved her, I loved Edith, and now I'd wait ten years for another book without any issue whatsoever. It's a lovely book about connections and about the family we have and the family we make. It's about love (very appropriate that I finished it on Valentine's Day). Thanks for revisiting these characters, Ms. de los Santos. I didn't know I needed them again, but I'm glad you did. 4+ stars.
I I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.