Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Accountant (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Rain Man with a Kalashnikov.
(Another Bob the Movie Man Showcase Theatre).
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Graduate (1967) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
Career Defining Turn by Bancroft
On the surface, THE GRADUATE is a story of a young college graduate who has an affair with an older woman. But look beneath the surface and this film becomes much, much more.
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Oct 11, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
I’m sure I wasn’t alone in the Summer of 2019 when Spider-Man: Far From Home was released in just needing a minute or two, maybe a couple of months, longer to catch my breath after Avengers: Engame, and what very much felt like an ending to the MCU plan that had been in motion since 2008. That climax was so satisfying and complete that the thought of any of them donning the costume and fighting bad guys again so soon felt wrong.
I wasn’t against the survivors having continued adventures, of course not. It was more a question of where do we go from here? And how? Well, perhaps Tom Holland as the youngest and most emotionally resilient of the bunch was the right choice to continue the universe, if any at all. Knowing that Jake Gyllenhaal had been brought onboard certainly added to the appeal, being one of my very favourite actors of the last decade (together with Ryan Gosling and Joaquin Phoenix), but I had made up my mind to skip this one at the cinema.
And so, before any of us knew where we were, it was Spring 2020 and we were all in a different place. Needing films, any films, to fill out the days of lockdown and isolation became a case of make a list and tick them off. This was one of those that made the shortlist around June when I began the trial month of Now TV and discovered that this was where all the big films of the last year I had missed were hiding.
I liked Spider-Man: Homecoming very much, after some initial trepidation over who the heck Jon Watts was, and why he had been trusted with such a big job out of seemingly nowhere? I also really like Tom Holland in the role. I think the idea of making him seem like a naive teenager again is a masterstroke, and he fast became The real Spider-Man in my head. His relationship with Robert Downey Jnr across the last handful of MCU films was rich, genuine and fully rounded, and Holland has managed to pitch the balance between nervy teen and likeable hero quite deftly.
The charm of the first film from Watts was how much it felt like a teen film, full of teens that were actual teens, not adults pretending to be teens. And in this second instalment that element is even more to the fore. It is a travelling road movie that keeps everything fresh and energetic, not giving a moment to dwell despondently on previous events, but looking forward to a bright, hopeful world, full of romance and adventure and discovery.
Other than Holland himself, who grows in stature and maturity as an actor every minute, the rising star of Zendaya as MJ fills the screen very pleasantly, she has a great aura about her for one so young. I am expecting great things from her, especially in the upcoming yet delayed Dune, directed by Denis Villeneuve. She doesn’t have a lot to do here, but steals enough scenes to hint at a serious talent. In fact, most of his classmates seem beyond their years ability-wise, or do they seem that way because of the skilled direction and bottomless production?
It’s also nice to get more time with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Marisa Tomei as Aunt May in this one. You always do wonder what the lesser characters have been up to while everyone else was saving the world. But the backbone of the film as a spectacle is the Peter Parker / Quentin Beck face off. Every moment of Holland and Gyllenhaal together feels like a huge movie treat. And knowing nothing about who Quentin Beck was going in from comic book lore, I got a real thrill out of how it all develops.
I came away from my small screen experience of this movie thinking that I had really enjoyed it, but in a very disposable way, that I was happy to leave behind almost instantly. Nothing about it is especially deep or meaningful, just fun! And that was 100% what Marvel needed at this junction in the pantheon. These guys are pretty smart at knowing when and why and how much with these movies, and I’m pleased to say they did it again!
There is some serious work to be done to ever reach the heights of interest generated by the final pairing of Avengers films, and a lot has changed, as it must, as some actors age, some even pass away (RIP CB) and some call it a day. But if nothing else, there feels like there is plenty of mileage left in this incarnation of the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man, and a lot of new fans to be hauled in by the onscreen romance between Tom Holland and Zendaya’s MJ. Older fans, like me, could maybe care less, but I believe that is the hook to ensure a future generation of fans stay loyal to Marvel. Every hero needs someone to save, after all. I’m still watching.
I wasn’t against the survivors having continued adventures, of course not. It was more a question of where do we go from here? And how? Well, perhaps Tom Holland as the youngest and most emotionally resilient of the bunch was the right choice to continue the universe, if any at all. Knowing that Jake Gyllenhaal had been brought onboard certainly added to the appeal, being one of my very favourite actors of the last decade (together with Ryan Gosling and Joaquin Phoenix), but I had made up my mind to skip this one at the cinema.
And so, before any of us knew where we were, it was Spring 2020 and we were all in a different place. Needing films, any films, to fill out the days of lockdown and isolation became a case of make a list and tick them off. This was one of those that made the shortlist around June when I began the trial month of Now TV and discovered that this was where all the big films of the last year I had missed were hiding.
I liked Spider-Man: Homecoming very much, after some initial trepidation over who the heck Jon Watts was, and why he had been trusted with such a big job out of seemingly nowhere? I also really like Tom Holland in the role. I think the idea of making him seem like a naive teenager again is a masterstroke, and he fast became The real Spider-Man in my head. His relationship with Robert Downey Jnr across the last handful of MCU films was rich, genuine and fully rounded, and Holland has managed to pitch the balance between nervy teen and likeable hero quite deftly.
The charm of the first film from Watts was how much it felt like a teen film, full of teens that were actual teens, not adults pretending to be teens. And in this second instalment that element is even more to the fore. It is a travelling road movie that keeps everything fresh and energetic, not giving a moment to dwell despondently on previous events, but looking forward to a bright, hopeful world, full of romance and adventure and discovery.
Other than Holland himself, who grows in stature and maturity as an actor every minute, the rising star of Zendaya as MJ fills the screen very pleasantly, she has a great aura about her for one so young. I am expecting great things from her, especially in the upcoming yet delayed Dune, directed by Denis Villeneuve. She doesn’t have a lot to do here, but steals enough scenes to hint at a serious talent. In fact, most of his classmates seem beyond their years ability-wise, or do they seem that way because of the skilled direction and bottomless production?
It’s also nice to get more time with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Marisa Tomei as Aunt May in this one. You always do wonder what the lesser characters have been up to while everyone else was saving the world. But the backbone of the film as a spectacle is the Peter Parker / Quentin Beck face off. Every moment of Holland and Gyllenhaal together feels like a huge movie treat. And knowing nothing about who Quentin Beck was going in from comic book lore, I got a real thrill out of how it all develops.
I came away from my small screen experience of this movie thinking that I had really enjoyed it, but in a very disposable way, that I was happy to leave behind almost instantly. Nothing about it is especially deep or meaningful, just fun! And that was 100% what Marvel needed at this junction in the pantheon. These guys are pretty smart at knowing when and why and how much with these movies, and I’m pleased to say they did it again!
There is some serious work to be done to ever reach the heights of interest generated by the final pairing of Avengers films, and a lot has changed, as it must, as some actors age, some even pass away (RIP CB) and some call it a day. But if nothing else, there feels like there is plenty of mileage left in this incarnation of the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man, and a lot of new fans to be hauled in by the onscreen romance between Tom Holland and Zendaya’s MJ. Older fans, like me, could maybe care less, but I believe that is the hook to ensure a future generation of fans stay loyal to Marvel. Every hero needs someone to save, after all. I’m still watching.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Candace Against the Universe (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Like being back with old friends....
Tenet? I’m sorry, no, THIS was actually the biggest movie release of last week. Well, it is when you’re currently having to isolate at home and cannot go to the cinema for a few weeks. Despite that, I was actually way more excited for this to hit Disney+ this morning than a man my age probably should have been, and I have been for sometime, since it was first announced. I even managed to convince my daughter to get up early and watch with me, recreating those wonderful days when we both used to get up bright and early on a Saturday morning and sit and watch back to back episodes.
For the uninitiated, Phineas and Ferb are two step-brothers who spend their summer holiday coming up with highly elaborate ways to occupy every day, usually resulting in some wacky adventures and an extremely frustrated sister, Candace. Candace is forever trying to bust the boys and get their mum to catch them in the act, only to fail every time as some last second incident conveniently erases any evidence. Oh, and they also have a pet platypus called Perry, who without their knowledge works as an agent for a secret animal organisation, trying each episode to thwart the latest evil scheme hatched by Dr Doofenshmirtz. It’s very funny, features some incredibly catchy songs, and is just an extremely well written show for both kids and adults to enjoy. Running for four seasons, and racking up over 200 episodes before ending in 2015, the show also spawned a number of crossover specials involving Marvel and Star Wars.
Candace against the universe is the second feature length Phineas and Ferb movie and opens with Candace, lamenting the sad fact that no matter what she does, she never manages to successfully bust her brothers. All of this is delivered in the form of a song, and acts as a nostalgic reminder of some of the crazy inventions and adventures the boys have been involved in over the course of the series. The song ends with another perfect chance for Candace to bust the boys, who are currently enjoying themselves with their friends in the back garden. But of course, she fails. After heading out to the front of the house, and meeting up with friend Vanessa, she spots an alien spaceship. Believing her brothers to be behind it somehow, she and Vanessa are sucked up inside, before taking off and shooting up into the sky.
The boys see Candace flying away in the ship, and after photographing the alien license plate, are able to quickly identify where she’s headed (as you do…). They round up the gang and quickly rustle up a portal in their back garden (as you do…), in order to jump to the planet where Candace is being taken. The portal takes them via Doofenshmirtz Evil Inc, where they pick up Heinz Doofenshmirtz and Perry the Platypus (unknowingly), before heading off in a spaceship of their own. When they do catch up with Candace, they discover that she is being hailed as ‘the chosen one’ by the alien race that captured her. But does the queen of the planet have a more sinister reason for bringing Candace all this way?
It’s fair to say that, unless you’re already a fan of the show, you’re unlikely to have any interest whatsoever in watching Candace Against the Universe. For fans of the show though, this is a wonderful trip down memory lane, unless you’ve already spent all of lockdown recently catching up on all of the episodes on Disney+, and it feels so good to be back in the company of such wonderful characters. There’s a lot of comfort to be had from the running gags and themes of the episode format of the show, and the only thing I found with this movie, and the crossover shows, is that they end up feeling like a dragged out episode at times, tending to sag a little around the middle.
It’s a very minor complaint though. The songs are as good as ever, including a song from Doofenshmirtz about ‘adulting’, and the humour is still smart and on point, although Buford does tend to get some of the funnier lines in my opinion. And when Buford gets ridiculed for bringing a canoe with him on their trip to the alien planet, and Doofenshmirtz gets laughed at for inventing something as stupid as a “Chicken Replace-inator” – basically a gun which swaps whatever you fire at with the nearest chicken – you just know they’re working on delivering us some great gags later on throughout the movie. And obviously, Perry the Platypus gets to save the day as usual, and without anyone even realising it. It’s like being back in the company of old friends. Fingers crossed that this isn’t the last we see of Phineas, Ferb and the gang.
For the uninitiated, Phineas and Ferb are two step-brothers who spend their summer holiday coming up with highly elaborate ways to occupy every day, usually resulting in some wacky adventures and an extremely frustrated sister, Candace. Candace is forever trying to bust the boys and get their mum to catch them in the act, only to fail every time as some last second incident conveniently erases any evidence. Oh, and they also have a pet platypus called Perry, who without their knowledge works as an agent for a secret animal organisation, trying each episode to thwart the latest evil scheme hatched by Dr Doofenshmirtz. It’s very funny, features some incredibly catchy songs, and is just an extremely well written show for both kids and adults to enjoy. Running for four seasons, and racking up over 200 episodes before ending in 2015, the show also spawned a number of crossover specials involving Marvel and Star Wars.
Candace against the universe is the second feature length Phineas and Ferb movie and opens with Candace, lamenting the sad fact that no matter what she does, she never manages to successfully bust her brothers. All of this is delivered in the form of a song, and acts as a nostalgic reminder of some of the crazy inventions and adventures the boys have been involved in over the course of the series. The song ends with another perfect chance for Candace to bust the boys, who are currently enjoying themselves with their friends in the back garden. But of course, she fails. After heading out to the front of the house, and meeting up with friend Vanessa, she spots an alien spaceship. Believing her brothers to be behind it somehow, she and Vanessa are sucked up inside, before taking off and shooting up into the sky.
The boys see Candace flying away in the ship, and after photographing the alien license plate, are able to quickly identify where she’s headed (as you do…). They round up the gang and quickly rustle up a portal in their back garden (as you do…), in order to jump to the planet where Candace is being taken. The portal takes them via Doofenshmirtz Evil Inc, where they pick up Heinz Doofenshmirtz and Perry the Platypus (unknowingly), before heading off in a spaceship of their own. When they do catch up with Candace, they discover that she is being hailed as ‘the chosen one’ by the alien race that captured her. But does the queen of the planet have a more sinister reason for bringing Candace all this way?
It’s fair to say that, unless you’re already a fan of the show, you’re unlikely to have any interest whatsoever in watching Candace Against the Universe. For fans of the show though, this is a wonderful trip down memory lane, unless you’ve already spent all of lockdown recently catching up on all of the episodes on Disney+, and it feels so good to be back in the company of such wonderful characters. There’s a lot of comfort to be had from the running gags and themes of the episode format of the show, and the only thing I found with this movie, and the crossover shows, is that they end up feeling like a dragged out episode at times, tending to sag a little around the middle.
It’s a very minor complaint though. The songs are as good as ever, including a song from Doofenshmirtz about ‘adulting’, and the humour is still smart and on point, although Buford does tend to get some of the funnier lines in my opinion. And when Buford gets ridiculed for bringing a canoe with him on their trip to the alien planet, and Doofenshmirtz gets laughed at for inventing something as stupid as a “Chicken Replace-inator” – basically a gun which swaps whatever you fire at with the nearest chicken – you just know they’re working on delivering us some great gags later on throughout the movie. And obviously, Perry the Platypus gets to save the day as usual, and without anyone even realising it. It’s like being back in the company of old friends. Fingers crossed that this isn’t the last we see of Phineas, Ferb and the gang.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Other Mrs. in Books
Apr 4, 2020
Mental illness done correctly (1 more)
Addictive
Mental illness.
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Attack the Block (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Remember, remember the fifth of November…because that’s when the film Attack the Block (from the producers of “Shaun of the Dead”) begins – on Guy Fawkes Night. If you want to know what that is, use a search engine like I did (there’s even a catchy poem for this British holiday, too).
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Language Of Thorns in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/new-blog-banner-17.png"/>;
<b>3.8 ★, to be exact. </b>
Sometimes, we enter a library, not really knowing what we are looking for. One day, I entered the library, only to return a few books. Instead, I returned with two more. The first one didn’t impress me, but the second one was this book – The Language of Thorns by Leigh Bardugo. I only picked it up, because I liked the cover. And I know, we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but I guess the magic worked on me this time around.
This book featured six stories, all six magical and beautiful in their own way. Some attracted me more, some a bit less, but I, overall, feel delighted to have read this book. I haven’t read Leigh’s previous books, so I didn’t know about this world before, but these are apparently the same woods featured in those books as well.
I will give a brief opinion on all stories, and the main rating will be the average from them all. Let’s go.
<b><i>1. Ayama and the Thorn Wood – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Interesting things only happen to pretty girls.’’</b>
A beautiful tale that will show you how beauty comes from within. The King and Queen have two sons – one is a beautiful man, the future king, and the other one is a monster. They are scared and ashamed of the monster-boy, and let him live his life in the labyrinth they made for him. In the village, in a poor family, there are two daughters, one as beautiful as the sun, and the other one ugly. When the monster escapes the labyrinth and starts ruining fields and make disasters, everyone is scared to go and talk to him and beg for forgiveness, so the ugly lady is sent to her woods – quite certain she will never return…
<b>‘’This little prince was shaped a bit like a boy but more like a wolf, his body covered in slick black fur from crown to clawed foot. His eyes were red as blood, and the nubs of two budding horns protruded from his head.’’</b>
<b><i>2. The Too-Clever Fox – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Freedom is a burden, but you will learn to bear it.’’</b>
I loved this story the most, out of all six of them. It reminded me of home, and of how we tell stories back there. The whole ‘’Once Upon a Time’’ is real, and I enjoyed every moment of it. The winter theme, the hunting, the girl and the fox. This is a story that will teach you to not be assured you can outsmart everyone. Foxes in stories have always been presented as the smart ones, outsmarting every animal in the woods. This reminds me of Aesop’s Tales, which I really loved as a little girl. But sometimes, you will get outsmarted, and it might cost you your life. The twist was definitely unexpected, but indeed satisfying.
<b><i>3. The Witch of Duva – ★★★</i></b>
A story where girls disappear, and one girl decides to go into the woods and try to figure out why. This story upset me, and I didn’t like it. But deep inside, it’s a good one. Very creepy though, and very horror-y, but worth reading. Turn the lights off, get under a blanket, turn your torch on, and only then you will be ready to know the deep secrets this story tells you.
<b><i>4. Little Knife – ★★★★</i></b>
The shortest story in the book, but by all means not the least intriguing. A story that features a woman that is too beautiful, that men lose their mind as soon as they see her. To get the chance to marry her, men will have to go through a various of tasks. The twist at the end is incredible, and I really liked it. It starts off as a usual story, but it goes wild.
<b><i>5. The Soldier Prince – ★★</i></b>
This was a story I enjoyed the least. It all screamed ‘’The Nutcracker’’ to me, and I couldn’t see it as original. It was a re-make, and it was very different that the story we know, but it just didn’t work for me. This is a story about a man who makes toys and gives them life. And when one toy sort of ‘’wakes up’’, interesting things start to happen. Quite a creepy story. I usually like those, but this one was not my cup of tea.
<b><i>6. When Water Sand Fire – ★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’ We were not made to please princes.’’</b>
This one is the longest story in the book. It features a world of creatures living underwater, and Ulla, who can sing and create magic, but who, as the people believe, is not a true born, but a mix between the underwater world and the humans. She is asked to help the prince become a king, but when the magic price is too high to paid, it doesn’t seem like she has a choice. I truly enjoyed this story, as it’s a beautiful mix of emotions while you read it. It was a bit disappointing that it seems as a remake of the creation of the character of Ursula from The Little Mermaid, at least to me.
Have you read this book, or any of Leigh Bardugo’s books? Let me know in the comments, I love to chat with you!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/new-blog-banner-17.png"/>;
<b>3.8 ★, to be exact. </b>
Sometimes, we enter a library, not really knowing what we are looking for. One day, I entered the library, only to return a few books. Instead, I returned with two more. The first one didn’t impress me, but the second one was this book – The Language of Thorns by Leigh Bardugo. I only picked it up, because I liked the cover. And I know, we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but I guess the magic worked on me this time around.
This book featured six stories, all six magical and beautiful in their own way. Some attracted me more, some a bit less, but I, overall, feel delighted to have read this book. I haven’t read Leigh’s previous books, so I didn’t know about this world before, but these are apparently the same woods featured in those books as well.
I will give a brief opinion on all stories, and the main rating will be the average from them all. Let’s go.
<b><i>1. Ayama and the Thorn Wood – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Interesting things only happen to pretty girls.’’</b>
A beautiful tale that will show you how beauty comes from within. The King and Queen have two sons – one is a beautiful man, the future king, and the other one is a monster. They are scared and ashamed of the monster-boy, and let him live his life in the labyrinth they made for him. In the village, in a poor family, there are two daughters, one as beautiful as the sun, and the other one ugly. When the monster escapes the labyrinth and starts ruining fields and make disasters, everyone is scared to go and talk to him and beg for forgiveness, so the ugly lady is sent to her woods – quite certain she will never return…
<b>‘’This little prince was shaped a bit like a boy but more like a wolf, his body covered in slick black fur from crown to clawed foot. His eyes were red as blood, and the nubs of two budding horns protruded from his head.’’</b>
<b><i>2. The Too-Clever Fox – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Freedom is a burden, but you will learn to bear it.’’</b>
I loved this story the most, out of all six of them. It reminded me of home, and of how we tell stories back there. The whole ‘’Once Upon a Time’’ is real, and I enjoyed every moment of it. The winter theme, the hunting, the girl and the fox. This is a story that will teach you to not be assured you can outsmart everyone. Foxes in stories have always been presented as the smart ones, outsmarting every animal in the woods. This reminds me of Aesop’s Tales, which I really loved as a little girl. But sometimes, you will get outsmarted, and it might cost you your life. The twist was definitely unexpected, but indeed satisfying.
<b><i>3. The Witch of Duva – ★★★</i></b>
A story where girls disappear, and one girl decides to go into the woods and try to figure out why. This story upset me, and I didn’t like it. But deep inside, it’s a good one. Very creepy though, and very horror-y, but worth reading. Turn the lights off, get under a blanket, turn your torch on, and only then you will be ready to know the deep secrets this story tells you.
<b><i>4. Little Knife – ★★★★</i></b>
The shortest story in the book, but by all means not the least intriguing. A story that features a woman that is too beautiful, that men lose their mind as soon as they see her. To get the chance to marry her, men will have to go through a various of tasks. The twist at the end is incredible, and I really liked it. It starts off as a usual story, but it goes wild.
<b><i>5. The Soldier Prince – ★★</i></b>
This was a story I enjoyed the least. It all screamed ‘’The Nutcracker’’ to me, and I couldn’t see it as original. It was a re-make, and it was very different that the story we know, but it just didn’t work for me. This is a story about a man who makes toys and gives them life. And when one toy sort of ‘’wakes up’’, interesting things start to happen. Quite a creepy story. I usually like those, but this one was not my cup of tea.
<b><i>6. When Water Sand Fire – ★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’ We were not made to please princes.’’</b>
This one is the longest story in the book. It features a world of creatures living underwater, and Ulla, who can sing and create magic, but who, as the people believe, is not a true born, but a mix between the underwater world and the humans. She is asked to help the prince become a king, but when the magic price is too high to paid, it doesn’t seem like she has a choice. I truly enjoyed this story, as it’s a beautiful mix of emotions while you read it. It was a bit disappointing that it seems as a remake of the creation of the character of Ursula from The Little Mermaid, at least to me.
Have you read this book, or any of Leigh Bardugo’s books? Let me know in the comments, I love to chat with you!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'