Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Despicable Me 3 (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Universal Pictures new release Despicable ME 3 stars Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig, Trey Parker, and brings back Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, and Nev Scharrel as Margo, Edith and Agnes.
Of course, there must be Minions, as well!
In this third installment of the animated series, Gru (Carell) and Lucy (Wiig) are fired from the Anti-Villain League for letting Balthazar Bratt (Parker) slip away, and embark on an adventure of trying to figure out “what’s next” in their lives.
In the midst of his employment dilemma, Gru discovers he has a long-lost twin brother Dru (also voiced by Carell), and takes the family off to see him in Fredonia. There, he discovers that his brother and his father have a successful pig-farming business, and appear to be quite wealthy. Lucy and the girls are immediately enamored of Dru, but Gru is not so easily won over, especially when he becomes jealous of his brothers luxurious hair.
Dru reveals that the family empire is built not just on the fruits of the pig empire, but also on their fathers’ secret villainy, and tells Gru that he was their dads’ biggest disappointment. Dru wants Gru to teach him how to be a super-villain, as he has always aspired to follow Gru’s footsteps.
While Dru and Gru set off to find and recover the giant diamond stolen by Balthazar Bratt, Lucy follows the girls around Fredonia.
The movie is full of 80’s tunes, brought on by the premise that Bratt is a failed 80’s child star.
The minions have less of a presence in this film, but when they are onscreen, they do provide the usual laughs we would associate with them. The best Minion scene is likely the musical number in prison.
I found the Balthazar Bratt character impossibly annoying, although I do acknowledge that that may have been “the point”. I found myself dreading his next interaction within the movie.
Despite that, I thought the movie flowed well, and I especially enjoyed the development of the relationships between Lucy and Margo, Edith and Agnes. Lucy’s “momma bear” moments made me smile.
My 8 year old son liked the movie a lot, and said his favorite parts were the bubble-gum weapon of the villain, and the new car that Dru and Gru use for their escapades. He especially liked that the end of the film left open the possibility of yet another installment of the Despicable Me series.
The child gives the movie 4 out of 5 stars, I myself would give it 3.5 out of 5, as I couldn’t quite get past the annoyance of the Bratt character, but besides that, overall, found it enjoyable.
Of course, there must be Minions, as well!
In this third installment of the animated series, Gru (Carell) and Lucy (Wiig) are fired from the Anti-Villain League for letting Balthazar Bratt (Parker) slip away, and embark on an adventure of trying to figure out “what’s next” in their lives.
In the midst of his employment dilemma, Gru discovers he has a long-lost twin brother Dru (also voiced by Carell), and takes the family off to see him in Fredonia. There, he discovers that his brother and his father have a successful pig-farming business, and appear to be quite wealthy. Lucy and the girls are immediately enamored of Dru, but Gru is not so easily won over, especially when he becomes jealous of his brothers luxurious hair.
Dru reveals that the family empire is built not just on the fruits of the pig empire, but also on their fathers’ secret villainy, and tells Gru that he was their dads’ biggest disappointment. Dru wants Gru to teach him how to be a super-villain, as he has always aspired to follow Gru’s footsteps.
While Dru and Gru set off to find and recover the giant diamond stolen by Balthazar Bratt, Lucy follows the girls around Fredonia.
The movie is full of 80’s tunes, brought on by the premise that Bratt is a failed 80’s child star.
The minions have less of a presence in this film, but when they are onscreen, they do provide the usual laughs we would associate with them. The best Minion scene is likely the musical number in prison.
I found the Balthazar Bratt character impossibly annoying, although I do acknowledge that that may have been “the point”. I found myself dreading his next interaction within the movie.
Despite that, I thought the movie flowed well, and I especially enjoyed the development of the relationships between Lucy and Margo, Edith and Agnes. Lucy’s “momma bear” moments made me smile.
My 8 year old son liked the movie a lot, and said his favorite parts were the bubble-gum weapon of the villain, and the new car that Dru and Gru use for their escapades. He especially liked that the end of the film left open the possibility of yet another installment of the Despicable Me series.
The child gives the movie 4 out of 5 stars, I myself would give it 3.5 out of 5, as I couldn’t quite get past the annoyance of the Bratt character, but besides that, overall, found it enjoyable.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated A Good Day To Die Hard (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
To me, the original Die Hard (1988) was the birth of the modern action movie that we now take for granted. We have a seeming normal everyman in Bruce Willis, playing a likable but tough as nails NYPD cop John McClane, who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Yes, Story if his life.) The street smart hero uses whatever resources he could muster to become a thorn in the side of an intelligent and sophisticated villain, while dropping a few comedy one-liners along the way. This being the 5th installment of the Die Hard series the formula seems to be working, only not as well as past films in the series.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Now Is Everything in Books
Dec 24, 2017
breathtaking (3 more)
powerful
suspenseful
heartbreaking
Hadley's life looks perfect from the outside. Her family is wealthy, and she's a successful athlete and student. What you don't see is that Hadley's father works at breaking her down, day after day, forcing her into playing lacrosse and taking flying lessons (his two passions), monitoring her whereabouts and food intake, berating and belittling her constantly, and much worse. Hadley endures it all though, if it keeps the spotlight off her beloved spitfire of a little sister, Lila. Hadley would do anything to keep her father's focus off of Lila. Lila's only ten--the age her father targeted his laser beam on her. Hadley's life improves, however, when she secretly starts dating Charlie Simmons. On the surface, Charlie's life isn't anything like hers--he's the son of a poor single mom, but the two quickly find they have more in common than they realize. Even better, Charlie gives Hadley something she hasn't had in a long time: hope. Then, Hadley is in a plane crash, which tragically leaves her family is dead. Only Hadley can tell everyone what happened, but she isn't divulging the details. What happened that day in the plane? And why would it cause Hadley--the only survivor--to want to take her own life?
This book. Oh this book. Wow. I completely overlooked this one on my ARC shelf, and for that, I deeply apologize. But, I'm so, so, so glad I did pick it up! This is an amazing, powerful, and heartbreaking book and easily one of my favorite books I've read this year.
Part of the power comes via its format, which seems simple on the surface. The novel and its details are all a slow build via a "then" and "now" format plus transcripts and bits of evidence from the crash investigator. All of our "then" and "now" portions come from Hadley's point of view and leave us constantly wondering. Why is her dad all over her? What makes him so evil? You are also left in utter confusion and suspense over exactly what happened during the crash (and why it happened). I read the second half in one sitting, staying up late to finish it. I simply had to know what happened to Hadley.
I credit this to Giles' writing, which is superb. You will get sucked in by Hadley extremely early. She's a well-written, compelling character, and it's nearly impossible not to become part of her life. In fact, rarely have I felt so strongly for characters in a novel in a long time. If I could have, I would have gone and rescued those children myself! I simply loved Hadley and her wonderful, feisty sister, Lila. The hate I felt for their horrible, abusive father--and, sometimes, their apathetic, passive mother, was insane. They felt like real people. I was completely involved.
In fact, those poor kids. The book actually made me feel tense just reading about their lives. It was so well-done that I read portions of it with a knot in my stomach. (As a note, there's definitely a trigger for abuse.) Watching Hadley try to protect her sister and live up to adult expectations far beyond her teen years--seriously, guys, it was heartbreaking and yet amazing to read. You will find yourself rooting for Hadley and Lila in an inexplicable way.
The ending on this one is interesting. I'm still pondering it. The fascinating thing about this book is that you know *something* has to have happened up in that plane, but you don't know exactly what, or how it all goes down. The ending made me go "wow." I'm not exactly sure it's what I would have chosen, but it still felt right somehow. Although I was so attached to Hadley, that I wish there was a sequel of sorts, because I still feel bonded to the girl. That's how well-done this novel was!
Overall, this is just a lovely book. Very, very rarely does a book make me cry. This one did. This is not a light read, no, but there are still funny moments, beautiful moments, and heartwarming moments among all the dark ones. You will not regret reading this book. Huge kudos to Amy Giles for writing such a powerful and wonderful novel that so deftly deals with abuse and aspects of mental illness. I feel like Hadley and Lila will stay with me for a long time. 4.5 stars.
This book. Oh this book. Wow. I completely overlooked this one on my ARC shelf, and for that, I deeply apologize. But, I'm so, so, so glad I did pick it up! This is an amazing, powerful, and heartbreaking book and easily one of my favorite books I've read this year.
Part of the power comes via its format, which seems simple on the surface. The novel and its details are all a slow build via a "then" and "now" format plus transcripts and bits of evidence from the crash investigator. All of our "then" and "now" portions come from Hadley's point of view and leave us constantly wondering. Why is her dad all over her? What makes him so evil? You are also left in utter confusion and suspense over exactly what happened during the crash (and why it happened). I read the second half in one sitting, staying up late to finish it. I simply had to know what happened to Hadley.
I credit this to Giles' writing, which is superb. You will get sucked in by Hadley extremely early. She's a well-written, compelling character, and it's nearly impossible not to become part of her life. In fact, rarely have I felt so strongly for characters in a novel in a long time. If I could have, I would have gone and rescued those children myself! I simply loved Hadley and her wonderful, feisty sister, Lila. The hate I felt for their horrible, abusive father--and, sometimes, their apathetic, passive mother, was insane. They felt like real people. I was completely involved.
In fact, those poor kids. The book actually made me feel tense just reading about their lives. It was so well-done that I read portions of it with a knot in my stomach. (As a note, there's definitely a trigger for abuse.) Watching Hadley try to protect her sister and live up to adult expectations far beyond her teen years--seriously, guys, it was heartbreaking and yet amazing to read. You will find yourself rooting for Hadley and Lila in an inexplicable way.
The ending on this one is interesting. I'm still pondering it. The fascinating thing about this book is that you know *something* has to have happened up in that plane, but you don't know exactly what, or how it all goes down. The ending made me go "wow." I'm not exactly sure it's what I would have chosen, but it still felt right somehow. Although I was so attached to Hadley, that I wish there was a sequel of sorts, because I still feel bonded to the girl. That's how well-done this novel was!
Overall, this is just a lovely book. Very, very rarely does a book make me cry. This one did. This is not a light read, no, but there are still funny moments, beautiful moments, and heartwarming moments among all the dark ones. You will not regret reading this book. Huge kudos to Amy Giles for writing such a powerful and wonderful novel that so deftly deals with abuse and aspects of mental illness. I feel like Hadley and Lila will stay with me for a long time. 4.5 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Full review: OMG explodey goodness! End.
Okay fine... the real full review is below.
Mike Banning is now on President Trumbull's secret service detail, past events have left him battered and bruised but he's not ready to stop doing what he was made to do.
When they take a short break so the President can get away from everything Mike is left in a life-changing situation. His team is all dead, the President is in a coma and all the evidence of the incident points to him. He needs to prove his innocence while evading every law enforcement agency that's hunting him, his only advantage? They aren't Mike Banning.
I loved Olympus Has Fallen, it was only narrowly edged out of the top spot the year it came out by White House Down. London Has Fallen was a completely different beast, it was much more aggressive and dark, and while entertaining it didn't feel like it fit with Olympus. Angel was always on my watchlist despite the dubious second instalment. At the very least it was going to be an action film where I didn't really have to think too much.
Angel Has Fallen is entirely predictable, I had two moments where I went "Oh... so this is what's going to happen..." I wasn't even mad that I guessed though, I was having too much fun.
Gerard Butler gets to flex his comedic muscles a bit more (look out for the wire), he does comedy so well that I've always got my fingers crossed for more of it. He mangles a lot of bad guys, naturally, but he managed to work in the fact that Mike isn't the spring chicken he used to be and it's a very convincing act. He also isn't phased by the fact his wife has had plastic surgery and transformed into a completely different woman.
Morgan Freeman reprises his role as Trumbull this time in the office of President. Freeman is one of my favourite actors and he always brings something to his roles. At one point he makes a very brief speech and that tone... it has a magical calming effect and instils great confidence. What are his political views? Is it worth considering him for office?
Nick Nolte also makes an appearance as Mike's estranger father. This leads to some very amusing scenes throughout. I'm not sure if it's because Nolte has the "grizzled back woodsman" look but it doesn't feel quite right that it's a father and son situation. The two have good chemistry though, especially while they're out in the woods.
There are some good and some bad things about the way the film is done. The worst is the CGI. Generally you'll always know where there's CGI in action but it will blend in well enough to be ignored. Some of the time that's true in Angel Has Fallen, but there's a lot that can't be ignored.
When it comes to the camera work it's quite good, you don't feel like you're missing anything and it helps you keep up with the action. There's just one point very early on that sticks out. We get a couple of first person shooter shots and while I understand why they were included it felt very out of place with the tone of everything around it.
After I saw London Has Fallen it felt like the franchise had already given up on itself a bit. Angel has definitely pulled it back. Olympus was a "serious" movie, London went much more ridiculous, and Angel did the only thing it could... go all out action. It feels very much like a classic 80s action storyline and I can't be mad at that.
Originally posted on: emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/angel-has-fallen-movie-review.html
Okay fine... the real full review is below.
Mike Banning is now on President Trumbull's secret service detail, past events have left him battered and bruised but he's not ready to stop doing what he was made to do.
When they take a short break so the President can get away from everything Mike is left in a life-changing situation. His team is all dead, the President is in a coma and all the evidence of the incident points to him. He needs to prove his innocence while evading every law enforcement agency that's hunting him, his only advantage? They aren't Mike Banning.
I loved Olympus Has Fallen, it was only narrowly edged out of the top spot the year it came out by White House Down. London Has Fallen was a completely different beast, it was much more aggressive and dark, and while entertaining it didn't feel like it fit with Olympus. Angel was always on my watchlist despite the dubious second instalment. At the very least it was going to be an action film where I didn't really have to think too much.
Angel Has Fallen is entirely predictable, I had two moments where I went "Oh... so this is what's going to happen..." I wasn't even mad that I guessed though, I was having too much fun.
Gerard Butler gets to flex his comedic muscles a bit more (look out for the wire), he does comedy so well that I've always got my fingers crossed for more of it. He mangles a lot of bad guys, naturally, but he managed to work in the fact that Mike isn't the spring chicken he used to be and it's a very convincing act. He also isn't phased by the fact his wife has had plastic surgery and transformed into a completely different woman.
Morgan Freeman reprises his role as Trumbull this time in the office of President. Freeman is one of my favourite actors and he always brings something to his roles. At one point he makes a very brief speech and that tone... it has a magical calming effect and instils great confidence. What are his political views? Is it worth considering him for office?
Nick Nolte also makes an appearance as Mike's estranger father. This leads to some very amusing scenes throughout. I'm not sure if it's because Nolte has the "grizzled back woodsman" look but it doesn't feel quite right that it's a father and son situation. The two have good chemistry though, especially while they're out in the woods.
There are some good and some bad things about the way the film is done. The worst is the CGI. Generally you'll always know where there's CGI in action but it will blend in well enough to be ignored. Some of the time that's true in Angel Has Fallen, but there's a lot that can't be ignored.
When it comes to the camera work it's quite good, you don't feel like you're missing anything and it helps you keep up with the action. There's just one point very early on that sticks out. We get a couple of first person shooter shots and while I understand why they were included it felt very out of place with the tone of everything around it.
After I saw London Has Fallen it felt like the franchise had already given up on itself a bit. Angel has definitely pulled it back. Olympus was a "serious" movie, London went much more ridiculous, and Angel did the only thing it could... go all out action. It feels very much like a classic 80s action storyline and I can't be mad at that.
Originally posted on: emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/angel-has-fallen-movie-review.html
Diggers, Whopping Diggers! - Machine fun for kids
Entertainment, Games and Stickers
App
Vroom, vroom! Does your little one love diggers and other construction machines? Whopping Diggers...
Kyera (8 KP) rated League of American Traitors in Books
Feb 1, 2018
The premise of this book is much more intriguing than its actual execution. Jasper is the descendant of Benedict Arnold, the most notorious traitor in American history. After the death of both of his parents, Jasper learns that there is more to his world than he ever knew. He learns that for hundreds of years, the descendants of both the heroes and villains from American history have been on opposing sides. The heroes' descendants, who call themselves the Sons of Liberty, challenge the descendants of the villains to a duel when they come of age. Unbeknownst to Jasper, his father was searching for a way out of the duel for his son. His untimely death leads Jasper down a path that forces him to question everything he's ever known.
I would like to mention that I was provided with an uncorrected e-galley to review this book. The fact that I was provided with the galley didn't affect my review, but the quality of the galley certainly influenced my enjoyment of the book. There were a number of grammatical or spelling errors throughout and that's something that pulls me out of the story. That is just a personal problem with the book and one I hope will not be present in the book when it is released on August 8th.
As a huge fan of history, I was incredibly intrigued by the premise of this book. It was sold as a mash-up of Hamilton and National Treasure - and who doesn't love those two things? It wasn't quite as fast-paced and thrilling as the premise would lead you to believe, but it is enjoyable.
I wish there was more character development in the novels because at times it was difficult to understand each character's motivations. They might have a complete change in perspective or opinion and it wasn't adequately explained leaving the reader questioning what was happening. There were so many characters in the book, many of which were quite prevalent that I understand that it probably wasn't possible to develop them all. That's just not feasible when writing a book, but I do think that the story would have benefitted greatly had there been just a bit more development.
The world that the author built was intriguing as he was able to blend authentic U.S. history in with his more dramatic narrative. Of course, settling one's qualms via a duel is a bit dramatic but he managed to raise the stakes. His characters' lives are on the line if they are not successful and yet the entire organization's framework could be altered if they are.
The plot of the book follows the course of American history with traitors and spies, secrets and betrayals, love and heartbreak. There are pacing issues with the book as it has moments that drag and others that seem to jump forward without enough context. There are some scenes that seem unnecessary to the plot and could be shorted to give more opportunities for character development. Overall, I feel that it is a good debut novel that could have been improved by culling extraneous scenes and delving more deeply into the world and characters.
Although it suffers from pacing issues and underdeveloped characters - it is still an entertaining read. I would recommend it to fans of history and action/adventure books, as it melds elements of both into a novel about the heroes and traitors of American history (and their descendants). There is a lot of violence in the book, but as it is not graphic I would not hesitate to allow a YA/teen reader to pick up this book. If you're a fan of historical fiction or action/adventures then you should definitely check out this book!
I would like to mention that I was provided with an uncorrected e-galley to review this book. The fact that I was provided with the galley didn't affect my review, but the quality of the galley certainly influenced my enjoyment of the book. There were a number of grammatical or spelling errors throughout and that's something that pulls me out of the story. That is just a personal problem with the book and one I hope will not be present in the book when it is released on August 8th.
As a huge fan of history, I was incredibly intrigued by the premise of this book. It was sold as a mash-up of Hamilton and National Treasure - and who doesn't love those two things? It wasn't quite as fast-paced and thrilling as the premise would lead you to believe, but it is enjoyable.
I wish there was more character development in the novels because at times it was difficult to understand each character's motivations. They might have a complete change in perspective or opinion and it wasn't adequately explained leaving the reader questioning what was happening. There were so many characters in the book, many of which were quite prevalent that I understand that it probably wasn't possible to develop them all. That's just not feasible when writing a book, but I do think that the story would have benefitted greatly had there been just a bit more development.
The world that the author built was intriguing as he was able to blend authentic U.S. history in with his more dramatic narrative. Of course, settling one's qualms via a duel is a bit dramatic but he managed to raise the stakes. His characters' lives are on the line if they are not successful and yet the entire organization's framework could be altered if they are.
The plot of the book follows the course of American history with traitors and spies, secrets and betrayals, love and heartbreak. There are pacing issues with the book as it has moments that drag and others that seem to jump forward without enough context. There are some scenes that seem unnecessary to the plot and could be shorted to give more opportunities for character development. Overall, I feel that it is a good debut novel that could have been improved by culling extraneous scenes and delving more deeply into the world and characters.
Although it suffers from pacing issues and underdeveloped characters - it is still an entertaining read. I would recommend it to fans of history and action/adventure books, as it melds elements of both into a novel about the heroes and traitors of American history (and their descendants). There is a lot of violence in the book, but as it is not graphic I would not hesitate to allow a YA/teen reader to pick up this book. If you're a fan of historical fiction or action/adventures then you should definitely check out this book!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Among the Ten Thousand Things in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Review on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/2016/01/oh-im-becoming-ghost-in-your-life-and.html">blog here</a>.
Jack Shanley is a fairly well-known New York artist. He's a married father of two. He's also an adulterer, who carries on affairs in his New York studio. This comes back to bite him, so to speak, when one of his exes sends his wife a large box chronicling their entire relationship - emails, texts, sexts - all printed and contained in this one box. The box is delivered to Jack's apartment and opened by his eleven-year-old daughter, Kay, and fifteen-year-old son, Simon. They show the box to their mother, Deb, forcing her to confront the many flaws of her husband. Meanwhile, Kay and Simon are (justifiably) traumatized by the box's contents and the possible dissolution of their parents' marriage.
This was an odd book. As a child of divorce, a lot of this book hit home, and I felt myself feeling a great deal of sympathy for Deb, Kay, and Simon - especially as they disappear off to their vacation home, of sorts, to recover. (Alas, no vacation home when I was a child.) Julia Pierpoint is certainly a strong writer and her prose is lovely and well-crafted. Still, the book often just seems a little flat.
The strangest part of this book, to me, as many other reviewers have pointed out - is that is constructed in four parts - parts one and three basically deal with the immediate aftermath of the box's delivery and how the family reacts. Parts two and four tell us what happen to Jack, Deb, Kay, and Simon for their entire lives. It's an odd author tool, and I'm not sure it entirely works. For me, I was caught up enough in Part One's tale and then found Part Two incredibly jarring - even more so to be dumped back into the current story at Part Three. Part Four repeats Two a bit and tells a bit more about what happens to the characters. It's an odd device, and I really would have preferred not to have had Part Two stuck in there at all. I suppose it's an artistic overreach that appeals to critics but not most actual readers.
Overall, I found the book an intriguing look at a family dealing with a father's betrayal. Not a ton happens - it's not that sort of book - but Pierpont's writing is strong, and I liked Simon and Kay. I am not sure the book is one that will leave a lasting impression with me, though.
Jack Shanley is a fairly well-known New York artist. He's a married father of two. He's also an adulterer, who carries on affairs in his New York studio. This comes back to bite him, so to speak, when one of his exes sends his wife a large box chronicling their entire relationship - emails, texts, sexts - all printed and contained in this one box. The box is delivered to Jack's apartment and opened by his eleven-year-old daughter, Kay, and fifteen-year-old son, Simon. They show the box to their mother, Deb, forcing her to confront the many flaws of her husband. Meanwhile, Kay and Simon are (justifiably) traumatized by the box's contents and the possible dissolution of their parents' marriage.
This was an odd book. As a child of divorce, a lot of this book hit home, and I felt myself feeling a great deal of sympathy for Deb, Kay, and Simon - especially as they disappear off to their vacation home, of sorts, to recover. (Alas, no vacation home when I was a child.) Julia Pierpoint is certainly a strong writer and her prose is lovely and well-crafted. Still, the book often just seems a little flat.
The strangest part of this book, to me, as many other reviewers have pointed out - is that is constructed in four parts - parts one and three basically deal with the immediate aftermath of the box's delivery and how the family reacts. Parts two and four tell us what happen to Jack, Deb, Kay, and Simon for their entire lives. It's an odd author tool, and I'm not sure it entirely works. For me, I was caught up enough in Part One's tale and then found Part Two incredibly jarring - even more so to be dumped back into the current story at Part Three. Part Four repeats Two a bit and tells a bit more about what happens to the characters. It's an odd device, and I really would have preferred not to have had Part Two stuck in there at all. I suppose it's an artistic overreach that appeals to critics but not most actual readers.
Overall, I found the book an intriguing look at a family dealing with a father's betrayal. Not a ton happens - it's not that sort of book - but Pierpont's writing is strong, and I liked Simon and Kay. I am not sure the book is one that will leave a lasting impression with me, though.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Dec 3, 2018
Epic Indeed
What makes a film stand the test of time? How do you create a movie that will have the same impact today as it will fifty years from now? That’s almost how long it’s been since The Godfather was released. Can you believe that? It was a classic then and still remains to be so. It follows the story of the Corleone family, a prominent mob family in New York. Michael (Al Pacino), youngest son of Godfather Vito (Marlon Brando), is trying to stay away from the “family business” but finds himself thrust right in the middle after a mob war erupts.
Acting: 10You couldn’t ask for a better cast than within that of The Godfather. Brando captures your attention from jump, smooth yet broiling with passion. He comes off as the type that can handle any situation but doesn’t need to do so to prove himself.
Pacino is phenomenal in his role as Michael. You can feel the weight of his innocence as he finds himself in the middle of things he vowed to stay away from. One of my favorite scenes involves him having to kill someone in a restaurant. When he goes to the bathroom to grab the gun (where it’s stashed in a stall), he is pacing and nervous. As a viewer, you can sense his struggle. He knows that once he does this, there is no going back. It’s incredible to watch his transformation over time as he ascends to power. You can see him becoming what his father was.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Vito and Michael are just a taste of the rich characters that keep the film fresh even to this day. You’ve got Sonny the firstborn, quick to drop a hit or do whatever it takes to protect his family. You find out exactly what that means when he confronts his sister’s abusive husband in the streets threatening to blow his head off.
Then you have a guy like Tom Hagen, the soft-spoken consigliere of the family. He brings a voice of reason to the chaos surrounding the Corleone family. He wants badly to be an official part of the family but can’t because of his Irish descent. As a result, it makes him work twice as hard.
These characters aren’t just one-dimensional, but they carry enough layers to singlehandedly move their own story. Through each of these characters you understand what it means to be a Corleone and how each of them play a specific part to complete the whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If the characters are what enhance the movie, conflict is what ultimately drives it. Sometimes the intensity is subtle while other times it’s loud and boisterous. It’s always there because you understand as a viewer that lives are always on the line, always at stake. The mafia families are playing for power and, most importantly, they are playing for keeps. There are so many great action sequences that stick out in my mind. There is no shortage of death and every death in this film comes with a meaning and a price.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
When a movie is pushing three hours or goes 3+, I’m usually thinking how they could have shortened things. Not only was the runtime necessary here, but The Godfather runs at a consistent smooth pace. It manages itself by keeping you on high alert in some scenes then reining you back in for the next scene.
I remember watching one intense scene where Michael was protecting his father in the hospital. I remember thinking, “Thank God the entire movie is not like this! I would have a heartattack.” Though the film is long, I would have gladly watched another hour if it had been tacked on.
Plot: 9
Enough of the love fest. Time for my one itty bitty gripe. There were a couple of occasions where I found it difficult to keep up with the families, in some cases the Corleones themselves. The plot tripped me up in spots but it was nothing close to ruining an amazing experience.
Resolution: 10The ending of this film is one for the ages, a powerful scene that will stand out in your mind for a long time. It’s the passing of a torch, but the way is unfolds is just so damn cool! I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen, but for those that have, you know exactly what I mean.
Overal: 99
Classic. I can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. I have to say, it was well worth the wait.
Acting: 10You couldn’t ask for a better cast than within that of The Godfather. Brando captures your attention from jump, smooth yet broiling with passion. He comes off as the type that can handle any situation but doesn’t need to do so to prove himself.
Pacino is phenomenal in his role as Michael. You can feel the weight of his innocence as he finds himself in the middle of things he vowed to stay away from. One of my favorite scenes involves him having to kill someone in a restaurant. When he goes to the bathroom to grab the gun (where it’s stashed in a stall), he is pacing and nervous. As a viewer, you can sense his struggle. He knows that once he does this, there is no going back. It’s incredible to watch his transformation over time as he ascends to power. You can see him becoming what his father was.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Vito and Michael are just a taste of the rich characters that keep the film fresh even to this day. You’ve got Sonny the firstborn, quick to drop a hit or do whatever it takes to protect his family. You find out exactly what that means when he confronts his sister’s abusive husband in the streets threatening to blow his head off.
Then you have a guy like Tom Hagen, the soft-spoken consigliere of the family. He brings a voice of reason to the chaos surrounding the Corleone family. He wants badly to be an official part of the family but can’t because of his Irish descent. As a result, it makes him work twice as hard.
These characters aren’t just one-dimensional, but they carry enough layers to singlehandedly move their own story. Through each of these characters you understand what it means to be a Corleone and how each of them play a specific part to complete the whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If the characters are what enhance the movie, conflict is what ultimately drives it. Sometimes the intensity is subtle while other times it’s loud and boisterous. It’s always there because you understand as a viewer that lives are always on the line, always at stake. The mafia families are playing for power and, most importantly, they are playing for keeps. There are so many great action sequences that stick out in my mind. There is no shortage of death and every death in this film comes with a meaning and a price.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
When a movie is pushing three hours or goes 3+, I’m usually thinking how they could have shortened things. Not only was the runtime necessary here, but The Godfather runs at a consistent smooth pace. It manages itself by keeping you on high alert in some scenes then reining you back in for the next scene.
I remember watching one intense scene where Michael was protecting his father in the hospital. I remember thinking, “Thank God the entire movie is not like this! I would have a heartattack.” Though the film is long, I would have gladly watched another hour if it had been tacked on.
Plot: 9
Enough of the love fest. Time for my one itty bitty gripe. There were a couple of occasions where I found it difficult to keep up with the families, in some cases the Corleones themselves. The plot tripped me up in spots but it was nothing close to ruining an amazing experience.
Resolution: 10The ending of this film is one for the ages, a powerful scene that will stand out in your mind for a long time. It’s the passing of a torch, but the way is unfolds is just so damn cool! I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen, but for those that have, you know exactly what I mean.
Overal: 99
Classic. I can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. I have to say, it was well worth the wait.