Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Dishonored 2 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
In a tale of revenge that would be worthy of Shakespeare, Dishonored 2 has arrived and is one of the best games of 2016.
Players have the option to play as Corvo or his daughter Emily, and each has their own unique abilities that will come in handy as the game is loaded with challenges.
Once a player has selected the persona they wish to play as, they will be forced to make a daring escape after a faction brutally seizes power and forces the player to exact no small measure of revenge as they strive to restore order in the kingdom.
Like the previous game in the series, players will have a very open and detailed world to explore and will have multiple options for combat, problem solving, and exploration. There are numerous things to explore and players will have the option to take a more stealth approach and avoid combat, or come in guns blazing. They will also have the option to help locales such as giving coins to a bagger, and so on.
There are numerous notes and journals as well along the way which allow the player a greater awareness of the world in which they are in as well as the overall story and the characters within them.
I am a more run and gun style player so the stealth gameplay that is at times needed took some getting used to, but once I was in the third chapter of the game, I was deeply engaged and found myself adapting to the demanding challenges that the game presented at times.
Ammunition such as bullets, crossbow bolts, and such are in short supply, so using your blade in hit and run tactics is the best bet, but at times when you must engage multiple enemies, being crafty pays off.
I loved to call up a swarm of rats using one of my abilities that players are able to select and modify as they find artifacts in game. Watching from a distance while the swarm decimates a pack of enemies and then swinging in for the kill was great fun.
However with various traps and enemies, this was not always practical. I found one area that was loaded with dangerous enemies and with no ammunition and only my blade; several futile attempts resulted in my demise time and again.
In a feat of inspiration, I remembered a Whale Oil dispenser at the earlier stage of the level so I backtracked and obtained a container which I then filled with oil and used as a highly explosive projectile by throwing this into masses of enemies. I repeated this tactic four or five times, saving the game after each run and was able to successfully clear away the hostiles.
Once inside the building my tactics had to change again as there was much danger lurking in the dark halls.
Dishonored 2 was a very enjoyable and challenging game with deeply engrossing story. I really enjoyed the brutal combat as well as the ability to find multiple solutions to the challenges the game presented. Graphically the game is solid but not cutting edge, but thanks to the great story and setting, you should not mind this or the at times monotone voice work of the game.
The game offers two free DLC modes to date for players who complete the game and with the ability to have new abilities playing as a different character, there is great replay value.
In the end, Dishonored 2 is a real bright spot and as such, is easily a game of the year candidate as it is some of the best gameplay of 2016 or any other year and is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/22/85969/
Players have the option to play as Corvo or his daughter Emily, and each has their own unique abilities that will come in handy as the game is loaded with challenges.
Once a player has selected the persona they wish to play as, they will be forced to make a daring escape after a faction brutally seizes power and forces the player to exact no small measure of revenge as they strive to restore order in the kingdom.
Like the previous game in the series, players will have a very open and detailed world to explore and will have multiple options for combat, problem solving, and exploration. There are numerous things to explore and players will have the option to take a more stealth approach and avoid combat, or come in guns blazing. They will also have the option to help locales such as giving coins to a bagger, and so on.
There are numerous notes and journals as well along the way which allow the player a greater awareness of the world in which they are in as well as the overall story and the characters within them.
I am a more run and gun style player so the stealth gameplay that is at times needed took some getting used to, but once I was in the third chapter of the game, I was deeply engaged and found myself adapting to the demanding challenges that the game presented at times.
Ammunition such as bullets, crossbow bolts, and such are in short supply, so using your blade in hit and run tactics is the best bet, but at times when you must engage multiple enemies, being crafty pays off.
I loved to call up a swarm of rats using one of my abilities that players are able to select and modify as they find artifacts in game. Watching from a distance while the swarm decimates a pack of enemies and then swinging in for the kill was great fun.
However with various traps and enemies, this was not always practical. I found one area that was loaded with dangerous enemies and with no ammunition and only my blade; several futile attempts resulted in my demise time and again.
In a feat of inspiration, I remembered a Whale Oil dispenser at the earlier stage of the level so I backtracked and obtained a container which I then filled with oil and used as a highly explosive projectile by throwing this into masses of enemies. I repeated this tactic four or five times, saving the game after each run and was able to successfully clear away the hostiles.
Once inside the building my tactics had to change again as there was much danger lurking in the dark halls.
Dishonored 2 was a very enjoyable and challenging game with deeply engrossing story. I really enjoyed the brutal combat as well as the ability to find multiple solutions to the challenges the game presented. Graphically the game is solid but not cutting edge, but thanks to the great story and setting, you should not mind this or the at times monotone voice work of the game.
The game offers two free DLC modes to date for players who complete the game and with the ability to have new abilities playing as a different character, there is great replay value.
In the end, Dishonored 2 is a real bright spot and as such, is easily a game of the year candidate as it is some of the best gameplay of 2016 or any other year and is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/22/85969/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 9, 2021
A classic
Film #14 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Saving Private Ryan
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Ridiculous storyline (1 more)
Improbable action
Magnetic bulls**t that will no doubt attract Fast-fans
Positives:
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Falling Short in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first found out about Falling Short, written by Lex Coulton, the blurb promised to be ''fresh, funny and life-affirming''. I am sorry, but no. That is not correct. This book was none of those things. It wasn’t bad at all, but I would prefer describing it as a slow-paced, and confusingly complex in an unsatisfying way.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tropic Thunder (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Deep in the jungles of Vietnam, one of the most expensive films in history is underway. The film is based upon a best seller by war hero Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte), and stars three of the biggest stars in Hollywood so naturally expectations are very high for the film to become a box office blockbuster.
Unfortunately the production is troubled by one gaffe after another and finds itself lost in budget over runs, issues amongst the stars, and more drama than a Shakespeare festival.
The film is “Tropical Thunder” and Director and star Ben Stiller has assembled a talented cast that includes Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. in a biting satire of the Hollywood machine.
Stiller stars as Tugg Speedman, a declining action star who sees the war film as his big chance to break away from his recent failures and move into more serious work. Tugg is overshadowed by the presence of multiple Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), who prepares for a part so intensely that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. Toward that end, he has undergone a skin pigment procedure in order to portray an African American soldier.
Rounding out the group, literally, is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), the star of flatulence based film comedy series and a man wracked by addiction to the point that he hides his drugs in a candy package and refers to them as his jelly beans.
After a staggeringly costly and impressive pyrotechnic display by the sets explosive expert Cody (Danny Mc Bride), the film is in danger of being halted by the money behind the film, an intensely angry Producer named Les Grossman (Tom Cruise).
In an effort to keep his film alive and salvage their careers, Four Leaf and the film’s Director decide to drop the cast in the thick of the jungle and shoot the film gorilla style with hidden cameras and various tricks to produce a grittier film and get the cast to start acting like the soldiers they are supposed to be portraying.
In a hilarious turn of events, the cast ends up trapped in the jungle and surrounded by members of the locale drug cartel. Convinced that it is all part of the film, Tugg and company blindly trudge along thinking all is going as scripted until things go hopelessly wrong, and force the cast to come to grips with the situation as well as their fragile egos and personal issues.
While the premise of the film is solid, and there are a good number of laughs in the film, for the most part “Tropic Thunder” is a hit or miss venture.
Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in his portrayal as he constantly steals his scenes with his expressions and one liners and almost single handled carries the film during some of the more tedious moments.
Stiller plays the patented Stiller character once again, the slow witted loser with a heart of gold, and despite his efforts, he is just not given enough material to fully push his character over the top, despite some funny moments.
The biggest disappointment for me was Jack Black who is sadly underused in the film. Jack is a very gifted and talented actor but he is given very little to work with, and precious few moments to let his talents shine. Owen Wilson was originally supposed to be in the film, and at times it seems that this part was written more with Wilson’s more subdued style of humor in mind.
Aside from the laughs, the film does have an abundance of celebrity cameos, and this truly helps the film. Sadly though, the plot really does not do justice to the premise nor talent in the film, and unfolds in a very unspectacular manner that had me expecting more.
This is not to say it is a bad film as I found myself laughing on more than one occasion, sadly it became fewer and father between laughs as the film unfolded to a very disappointing finale.
Unfortunately the production is troubled by one gaffe after another and finds itself lost in budget over runs, issues amongst the stars, and more drama than a Shakespeare festival.
The film is “Tropical Thunder” and Director and star Ben Stiller has assembled a talented cast that includes Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. in a biting satire of the Hollywood machine.
Stiller stars as Tugg Speedman, a declining action star who sees the war film as his big chance to break away from his recent failures and move into more serious work. Tugg is overshadowed by the presence of multiple Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), who prepares for a part so intensely that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. Toward that end, he has undergone a skin pigment procedure in order to portray an African American soldier.
Rounding out the group, literally, is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), the star of flatulence based film comedy series and a man wracked by addiction to the point that he hides his drugs in a candy package and refers to them as his jelly beans.
After a staggeringly costly and impressive pyrotechnic display by the sets explosive expert Cody (Danny Mc Bride), the film is in danger of being halted by the money behind the film, an intensely angry Producer named Les Grossman (Tom Cruise).
In an effort to keep his film alive and salvage their careers, Four Leaf and the film’s Director decide to drop the cast in the thick of the jungle and shoot the film gorilla style with hidden cameras and various tricks to produce a grittier film and get the cast to start acting like the soldiers they are supposed to be portraying.
In a hilarious turn of events, the cast ends up trapped in the jungle and surrounded by members of the locale drug cartel. Convinced that it is all part of the film, Tugg and company blindly trudge along thinking all is going as scripted until things go hopelessly wrong, and force the cast to come to grips with the situation as well as their fragile egos and personal issues.
While the premise of the film is solid, and there are a good number of laughs in the film, for the most part “Tropic Thunder” is a hit or miss venture.
Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in his portrayal as he constantly steals his scenes with his expressions and one liners and almost single handled carries the film during some of the more tedious moments.
Stiller plays the patented Stiller character once again, the slow witted loser with a heart of gold, and despite his efforts, he is just not given enough material to fully push his character over the top, despite some funny moments.
The biggest disappointment for me was Jack Black who is sadly underused in the film. Jack is a very gifted and talented actor but he is given very little to work with, and precious few moments to let his talents shine. Owen Wilson was originally supposed to be in the film, and at times it seems that this part was written more with Wilson’s more subdued style of humor in mind.
Aside from the laughs, the film does have an abundance of celebrity cameos, and this truly helps the film. Sadly though, the plot really does not do justice to the premise nor talent in the film, and unfolds in a very unspectacular manner that had me expecting more.
This is not to say it is a bad film as I found myself laughing on more than one occasion, sadly it became fewer and father between laughs as the film unfolded to a very disappointing finale.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lens and the Looker in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The premise of this book was quite intriguing, so I had high hopes to see how this concept of "History Camps" played out using the city of Verona in the year 1347. What I did not really understand was why Hansum and Lincoln were specifically cast as lens-maker apprentices. Kaufman goes into extreme detail regarding the intricacies of making lenses for eye glasses with rudimentary tools of that time period, and quite a bit of the book is devoted to the education of the process and the modernization of the tools used. Seeing the lens-making business in practice in the "real" Verona showed that the "lenses for the eyes" contributed as more of a novelty for the wealthy and educated than a wide-spread tool used by the masses. In contrast, Shamira's role as kitchen girl made much more sense to me, as that is a generic role that would not necessarily impede the progression of plot.
Backing up, I was very interested in the present-day time period of 2347 and the few details that Kaufman spared regarding this society. Unfortunately, not much is explained about how this society came to be. A brief explanation is given for the planetary population of 300 million, along with other random details interspersed throughout the book, such as every child born is paired with an A.I., people are implanted with a device that keeps disease and infection at bay, and parents are only allowed to have one child with a lottery sometimes allowing for a second child. The purpose of the History Camps are explained through the rebellious attitudes of the three main characters and how they can easily manipulate the system for their own entertainment. As a parent, the word that continually echoed through my head regarding these children in the Hard-Time History Camp is "Spoiled!" Though they are supposed to be learning about how the rebellion of the human populations of the past caused everything from war, to disease, to poverty and famine, the way the children are coddled and protected from any sort of real pain or hardship makes me wonder how these History Camps ever accomplished anything of lasting value in any child.
Once the children are brought to the real Verona and abandoned as orphans, they finally begin to get a taste of real difficulty and hardship, but this is where the believability ends for me. The children had a single day in the History Camp Verona to get acquainted with their roles, and they show up in the real Verona as near-experts, maneuvering the details of their jobs to accommodate for comfort and ease of use that the family they work for is not familiar with, of course all with the help and direction of a very convenient genie. On top of all of this, the three children become agreeable, cooperative, and hard-working practically overnight, with little sign of the rebellious tendencies that put them in a History Camp in the first place. These transitions in character development felt forced to me.
Another aspect that really bugged me from the beginning of the book was the awkwardness of the dialog throughout the book, specifically regarding the children's speech. It felt stilted and over-simplified, and slowed down my reading because I consistently felt that children today did not speak like this. Some of the speech of the people native to the real Verona also seemed strange, but I attributed that to the speech of the time period.
Many of the characters took on unique facets that made them rather memorable to me, such as Ugilino's looks and arrogance, Signora della Cappa's madness, and Shamira's artistic inclinations. The budding romance between Hansum, or "Romero", and Guilietta copies the Shakespearean play, "Romeo and Juliet", in many ways, down to the presence of a Father Lurenzano, and I have to wonder about Kaufman's motivations for working this tale into the plot. And again, their romance also felt forced and over-the-top, missing the reality-warping conviction that is obvious in the original Shakespeare story.
I also have to wonder how these advancements that the three children are introducing to 1347 Verona are actually affecting the progression of time, since this is a much harped-upon concern regarding time travel. The only thing that is apparent to both the children and the reader is the quaint changes made to the appearance of the genie. Something else that is also mentioned early on is that this is also the same time period as the Black Plague, which has yet to make an appearance. Hopefully, the next book in the trilogy will address these things, The Bronze and the Brimstone: The Verona Trilogy, Book 2.
This book seemed geared to appeal to pre-teens and young teens in many ways, but as an adult reader, it left much to be desired for me.
Backing up, I was very interested in the present-day time period of 2347 and the few details that Kaufman spared regarding this society. Unfortunately, not much is explained about how this society came to be. A brief explanation is given for the planetary population of 300 million, along with other random details interspersed throughout the book, such as every child born is paired with an A.I., people are implanted with a device that keeps disease and infection at bay, and parents are only allowed to have one child with a lottery sometimes allowing for a second child. The purpose of the History Camps are explained through the rebellious attitudes of the three main characters and how they can easily manipulate the system for their own entertainment. As a parent, the word that continually echoed through my head regarding these children in the Hard-Time History Camp is "Spoiled!" Though they are supposed to be learning about how the rebellion of the human populations of the past caused everything from war, to disease, to poverty and famine, the way the children are coddled and protected from any sort of real pain or hardship makes me wonder how these History Camps ever accomplished anything of lasting value in any child.
Once the children are brought to the real Verona and abandoned as orphans, they finally begin to get a taste of real difficulty and hardship, but this is where the believability ends for me. The children had a single day in the History Camp Verona to get acquainted with their roles, and they show up in the real Verona as near-experts, maneuvering the details of their jobs to accommodate for comfort and ease of use that the family they work for is not familiar with, of course all with the help and direction of a very convenient genie. On top of all of this, the three children become agreeable, cooperative, and hard-working practically overnight, with little sign of the rebellious tendencies that put them in a History Camp in the first place. These transitions in character development felt forced to me.
Another aspect that really bugged me from the beginning of the book was the awkwardness of the dialog throughout the book, specifically regarding the children's speech. It felt stilted and over-simplified, and slowed down my reading because I consistently felt that children today did not speak like this. Some of the speech of the people native to the real Verona also seemed strange, but I attributed that to the speech of the time period.
Many of the characters took on unique facets that made them rather memorable to me, such as Ugilino's looks and arrogance, Signora della Cappa's madness, and Shamira's artistic inclinations. The budding romance between Hansum, or "Romero", and Guilietta copies the Shakespearean play, "Romeo and Juliet", in many ways, down to the presence of a Father Lurenzano, and I have to wonder about Kaufman's motivations for working this tale into the plot. And again, their romance also felt forced and over-the-top, missing the reality-warping conviction that is obvious in the original Shakespeare story.
I also have to wonder how these advancements that the three children are introducing to 1347 Verona are actually affecting the progression of time, since this is a much harped-upon concern regarding time travel. The only thing that is apparent to both the children and the reader is the quaint changes made to the appearance of the genie. Something else that is also mentioned early on is that this is also the same time period as the Black Plague, which has yet to make an appearance. Hopefully, the next book in the trilogy will address these things, The Bronze and the Brimstone: The Verona Trilogy, Book 2.
This book seemed geared to appeal to pre-teens and young teens in many ways, but as an adult reader, it left much to be desired for me.