Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Oct 12, 2020
Monae shines - the rest falls flat
One of the films that I circled on my calendar back in the beginning of 2020 was a trippy looking "Civil War anachronism" film (my term) ANTEBELLUM starring Janelle Monae. I'm a sucker for these kinds of films, so was a little sad that I couldn't see it in the theater, but was thrilled when this "horror film" debuted on pay-per-view in time for Halloween.
I now know why the producers of this film decided to get this out now vs. waiting to release it theatrically sometime in 2021.
Billed as "Jordan Peel's GET OUT meets an M. Night Shyamalan film", ANTEBELLUM is a movie told in 3 acts. In the first act, Janelle Monae's character (who is given the slave name Eden) is brought into a Southern, Antebellum, plantation. This part of the film shows the desperation and despair that slaves lived in at a time that they had no rights and were under the whims of their White Slave Owners. The character of Eden is fiesty and is constantly looking to escape, but...eventually...is worn down by her masters and capitulates...to a point. This is the most successful part of this film, but has been better covered in other films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE.
The 2nd part of this movie takes place in "modern day" and concerns a successful author, Veronica Henley (also played by Monae). This character specializes in books and motivational speeches designed to empower the African-American woman. This part of the movie highlights Monae's appeal as a screen presence and she overcomes some weak writing to rise above. This part of the film, ultimately, falls flat for me, but I was curious as to how these 2 very different pieces of this movie fit together.
The 3rd part of this movie answers that question. If only, it answered it better....for pieces of this part of the movie works well...but others fall very, very flat resulting, ultimately, in a less than satisfying film-going experience that could have used some further work.
Monae's performance (for the most part) shines in this movie. She handles both characters that she is playing in a sharp, charismatic way. I could really buy that she is a popular "motivational" speaker (in the modern part of the movie). I could also see the fire in her spirit during the "Antebellum" part. What I didn't buy (and a weakness in the script doesn't help this part) is her "capitulation" to her slave owners.
And...that's about if for performances that stood out. All of the white actors playing the slave owners (mainly Eric Lange, Jena Malone and Jack Huston) are capital "E" evil. While this is probably historically accurate, they weren't evil enough - or multi-dimensional enough - to keep my attention. Compounding that issue is that the other characters in the "modern part" of the film are very generic and forgettable.
And then we get to the 3rd part of this film - where the first 2 parts are melded together.
It is one of those types of storytelling tropes that either you "go with it" or you don't. If you don't, the movie will lose you right there. If you do (and I did), then it is an interesting place to go and blends the first 2 parts of the film "well enough". My problem is that I didn't care enough about the characters to care about what happens.
I lay the blame of this on filmmakers Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz. They co-wrote and co-directed this movie. I had never heard of them, or (I don't think) I've encountered their work before, but upon reading up on them, they are listed as "Visionary Filmmakers Bush+Renz". If they are visionaries, they sure didn't bring much vision here. It was all pretty straightforward and could have used some other kind of "visionary" to lift this movie to a higher level.
You know, like Jordan Peele or even M. Night Shyamalan.
Letter Grade C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I now know why the producers of this film decided to get this out now vs. waiting to release it theatrically sometime in 2021.
Billed as "Jordan Peel's GET OUT meets an M. Night Shyamalan film", ANTEBELLUM is a movie told in 3 acts. In the first act, Janelle Monae's character (who is given the slave name Eden) is brought into a Southern, Antebellum, plantation. This part of the film shows the desperation and despair that slaves lived in at a time that they had no rights and were under the whims of their White Slave Owners. The character of Eden is fiesty and is constantly looking to escape, but...eventually...is worn down by her masters and capitulates...to a point. This is the most successful part of this film, but has been better covered in other films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE.
The 2nd part of this movie takes place in "modern day" and concerns a successful author, Veronica Henley (also played by Monae). This character specializes in books and motivational speeches designed to empower the African-American woman. This part of the movie highlights Monae's appeal as a screen presence and she overcomes some weak writing to rise above. This part of the film, ultimately, falls flat for me, but I was curious as to how these 2 very different pieces of this movie fit together.
The 3rd part of this movie answers that question. If only, it answered it better....for pieces of this part of the movie works well...but others fall very, very flat resulting, ultimately, in a less than satisfying film-going experience that could have used some further work.
Monae's performance (for the most part) shines in this movie. She handles both characters that she is playing in a sharp, charismatic way. I could really buy that she is a popular "motivational" speaker (in the modern part of the movie). I could also see the fire in her spirit during the "Antebellum" part. What I didn't buy (and a weakness in the script doesn't help this part) is her "capitulation" to her slave owners.
And...that's about if for performances that stood out. All of the white actors playing the slave owners (mainly Eric Lange, Jena Malone and Jack Huston) are capital "E" evil. While this is probably historically accurate, they weren't evil enough - or multi-dimensional enough - to keep my attention. Compounding that issue is that the other characters in the "modern part" of the film are very generic and forgettable.
And then we get to the 3rd part of this film - where the first 2 parts are melded together.
It is one of those types of storytelling tropes that either you "go with it" or you don't. If you don't, the movie will lose you right there. If you do (and I did), then it is an interesting place to go and blends the first 2 parts of the film "well enough". My problem is that I didn't care enough about the characters to care about what happens.
I lay the blame of this on filmmakers Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz. They co-wrote and co-directed this movie. I had never heard of them, or (I don't think) I've encountered their work before, but upon reading up on them, they are listed as "Visionary Filmmakers Bush+Renz". If they are visionaries, they sure didn't bring much vision here. It was all pretty straightforward and could have used some other kind of "visionary" to lift this movie to a higher level.
You know, like Jordan Peele or even M. Night Shyamalan.
Letter Grade C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
PES CLUB MANAGER
Games and Entertainment
App
The "PES" soccer simulation game has been played by more than 25 million users around the globe....
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Let The Dead Keep Their Secrets in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Let The DEAD Keep Their Secrets by Rosemary Simpson brings to life New York City during the 1880s in a historical mystery. It is rich in the culture of the time with a riveting Colombo type crime. Readers know who has done it and seek clues with the characters to find the proof.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
Carma (21 KP) rated My Best Friend's Mardi Gras Wedding (Boys of the Bayou, #1) in Books
Jun 17, 2019
I have never wanted to move to Louisiana, ever. The bugs, the swamps, the heat and humidity, ugh. But after reading this latest installment by Ms Nicholas, I may just have to pack my bags and head south. Ohhhweeee this is a scorcher.
Tori was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras last year, her first vacation in a very long time. While in town she went to a bar where she met Josh. Josh was a typical southern boy, sweet talking, flirt that knew his way around a woman. Thinking his interest in her was just a game he was playing made flirting with him easy as she knew it would go no where, but it was too quick to have these kinds of feelings right? When he suggests meeting back in the same spot in one year if they were both still interested, to show her it wasnt just about a one-night stand, she accepts. Now it is Mardi Gras one year later and she is in town for her best friend Andrews wedding. Should she expose herself and see if he shows?
Josh has been mooning over Tori for a year and is making his way to the bar he worked at last year to see if she shows. He hopes she shows up, she has to, there is no other option. Making his way down Bourbon Street is another story though. At this rate he is going to use up his whole break just making it the few short blocks he needs to walk. Please be there!!!
Tori heads to the bar, with her Mardi Gras mask in place and sees who she thinks is Josh also with a mask on. He sees her and heads her way, calling out to her just before she kisses him. But wait, the kiss though familiar isnt the spark fire kiss that Josh gave her last year. She pulls back to find Andrew under the mask. After apologizing and explaining who she was looking for she finds out the Josh doesnt work there anymore but the let her know where she can find him. She heads out the next day to see if he is still interested in her.
Josh never imagined Tori would come looking for him after she failed to show up at the bar last night. When she arrives at his business he realizes she did show but they missed each other. He also learns about the mistaken kiss and why she is really in town. He doesnt care either way, he is just beyond the moon that Tori is back. He will do whatever it takes to make sure she never goes back to Iowa again.
Tori is used to being handled by Andrew, she tends to be irrational and embarrassing (well at least according to Andrew and her father) so when he tries to reign her in she goes along with it. Knowing Paisley (Andrews fiancé) has it in for her as well thinking she is secretly in love with Andrew isnt helping the situation at all. I wont go in to too much with Paisley and Andrew but I wanted to jump in the book and punch them both. Andrew preys on Toris vulnerability and makes her doubt herself constantly throughout the book. Josh knows he will need to make a big declaration to get Tori to just be herself and accept him and the life he wants to give her.
This book starts a new series, Boys of the Bayou which spins off from Boys of the Big Easy. You do not have to read these books in any order, they are good as standalones but there are character overlaps and some back stories mentioned that if you like to keep things in chronological order may irk you if read out of order. Once again the author give me a 5 star book to consume in rapid fashion. There are so many laugh out loud and real life moments in this book I couldnt even start listing them or this review would be 10 pages long. Just know that the secondary characters are all hysterical and I would love to follow them around in real life 24/7/365. I voluntarily read and advance reader copy without expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are my own. You are doing yourself a great disservice by not adding this to your bookshelf, ebook or however you get your next great reads in your hands. Go, go now, go quickly and enjoy.
Tori was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras last year, her first vacation in a very long time. While in town she went to a bar where she met Josh. Josh was a typical southern boy, sweet talking, flirt that knew his way around a woman. Thinking his interest in her was just a game he was playing made flirting with him easy as she knew it would go no where, but it was too quick to have these kinds of feelings right? When he suggests meeting back in the same spot in one year if they were both still interested, to show her it wasnt just about a one-night stand, she accepts. Now it is Mardi Gras one year later and she is in town for her best friend Andrews wedding. Should she expose herself and see if he shows?
Josh has been mooning over Tori for a year and is making his way to the bar he worked at last year to see if she shows. He hopes she shows up, she has to, there is no other option. Making his way down Bourbon Street is another story though. At this rate he is going to use up his whole break just making it the few short blocks he needs to walk. Please be there!!!
Tori heads to the bar, with her Mardi Gras mask in place and sees who she thinks is Josh also with a mask on. He sees her and heads her way, calling out to her just before she kisses him. But wait, the kiss though familiar isnt the spark fire kiss that Josh gave her last year. She pulls back to find Andrew under the mask. After apologizing and explaining who she was looking for she finds out the Josh doesnt work there anymore but the let her know where she can find him. She heads out the next day to see if he is still interested in her.
Josh never imagined Tori would come looking for him after she failed to show up at the bar last night. When she arrives at his business he realizes she did show but they missed each other. He also learns about the mistaken kiss and why she is really in town. He doesnt care either way, he is just beyond the moon that Tori is back. He will do whatever it takes to make sure she never goes back to Iowa again.
Tori is used to being handled by Andrew, she tends to be irrational and embarrassing (well at least according to Andrew and her father) so when he tries to reign her in she goes along with it. Knowing Paisley (Andrews fiancé) has it in for her as well thinking she is secretly in love with Andrew isnt helping the situation at all. I wont go in to too much with Paisley and Andrew but I wanted to jump in the book and punch them both. Andrew preys on Toris vulnerability and makes her doubt herself constantly throughout the book. Josh knows he will need to make a big declaration to get Tori to just be herself and accept him and the life he wants to give her.
This book starts a new series, Boys of the Bayou which spins off from Boys of the Big Easy. You do not have to read these books in any order, they are good as standalones but there are character overlaps and some back stories mentioned that if you like to keep things in chronological order may irk you if read out of order. Once again the author give me a 5 star book to consume in rapid fashion. There are so many laugh out loud and real life moments in this book I couldnt even start listing them or this review would be 10 pages long. Just know that the secondary characters are all hysterical and I would love to follow them around in real life 24/7/365. I voluntarily read and advance reader copy without expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are my own. You are doing yourself a great disservice by not adding this to your bookshelf, ebook or however you get your next great reads in your hands. Go, go now, go quickly and enjoy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pixie (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
Olivia Cooke - utterly enchanting (1 more)
Just the right balance of black humour and Tarantino-esque violence
Once upon a Time in the West... of Ireland
You know sometimes when you see a trailer you think "oh yeah - this is a must see"! The trailer for "Pixie" (see below) was one such moment for me. A spaghetti western set in Sligo? With Alec Baldwin as a "deadly gangster priest"? Yes, yes, yes!
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)