Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Fifteen years after she charmed the world with the Diary of Bridget Jones, Rene Zellweger is back and her love life is just as complicated as usual, making the audience to laugh nonstop.
At the beginning I didn’t know what to expect from this film because the first movie was great, the second not so much; but it has been 12 years since then, fortunately it was a very pleasant surprise.
In this third film British singleton Bridget has broken up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) and turned her focus on advancing her career, she is now a top news producer who can’t help but worrying because she is a 43 yrs. old single woman, whose friends are in committed relationships and having kids.
In an attempt to cheer her up one of these fun friends Miranda (Sarah Solemani) take her to a music festival as a getaway weekend, where Bridget meets Jack (Patrick Dempsey), an American love guru with whom she has a one-night stand.
That encounter is followed by a Baptism a week later, where Mr. Darcy is the godparent, whom she shagged but then realized that He hasn’t change and still a workaholic, the reason why they broke up in the first place, so she decided to leave him in bed and try to move on.
But something happened and, like you can probably tell from the title, Bridget is pregnant. But she is not sure who the father is. It could be the confident and gorgeous Jack or the always elegant and perfect gentleman Mark.
Like in the first 2 films we have two very attractive men fighting for her love. But Bridget is less interested in whom she’ll end up with and instead is more concerned with who she’s hurting by giving them the news that one is the father and the other one isn’t. She decides to wait until after giving birth to get a DNA test for the baby, in the meantime both men decide to assist during the stages of her pregnancy creating some delightful charming old-fashioned comedy set ups.
Jones’s Baby really works and I can say with confidence it is one of the best sequels of the year, I think the big difference is that Jones is no longer the butt of jokes, and matter of fact there is not a single chubby joke, and yes Zellweger doesn’t look like the same Bridget (even my husband who loves chick flicks, thought it was a different actress) but hey! She shouldn’t look the same. It’s been 15 years; In fact, neither does Firth as Mr. Darcy or Dr. McDreammy. As a franchise, this Jones has done more than update from a pen to paper diary to an iPad, it’s embraced its characters to allow them to get involved in very funny situations and laid less emphasis on crying to the song “All By Myself”.
At the beginning I didn’t know what to expect from this film because the first movie was great, the second not so much; but it has been 12 years since then, fortunately it was a very pleasant surprise.
In this third film British singleton Bridget has broken up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) and turned her focus on advancing her career, she is now a top news producer who can’t help but worrying because she is a 43 yrs. old single woman, whose friends are in committed relationships and having kids.
In an attempt to cheer her up one of these fun friends Miranda (Sarah Solemani) take her to a music festival as a getaway weekend, where Bridget meets Jack (Patrick Dempsey), an American love guru with whom she has a one-night stand.
That encounter is followed by a Baptism a week later, where Mr. Darcy is the godparent, whom she shagged but then realized that He hasn’t change and still a workaholic, the reason why they broke up in the first place, so she decided to leave him in bed and try to move on.
But something happened and, like you can probably tell from the title, Bridget is pregnant. But she is not sure who the father is. It could be the confident and gorgeous Jack or the always elegant and perfect gentleman Mark.
Like in the first 2 films we have two very attractive men fighting for her love. But Bridget is less interested in whom she’ll end up with and instead is more concerned with who she’s hurting by giving them the news that one is the father and the other one isn’t. She decides to wait until after giving birth to get a DNA test for the baby, in the meantime both men decide to assist during the stages of her pregnancy creating some delightful charming old-fashioned comedy set ups.
Jones’s Baby really works and I can say with confidence it is one of the best sequels of the year, I think the big difference is that Jones is no longer the butt of jokes, and matter of fact there is not a single chubby joke, and yes Zellweger doesn’t look like the same Bridget (even my husband who loves chick flicks, thought it was a different actress) but hey! She shouldn’t look the same. It’s been 15 years; In fact, neither does Firth as Mr. Darcy or Dr. McDreammy. As a franchise, this Jones has done more than update from a pen to paper diary to an iPad, it’s embraced its characters to allow them to get involved in very funny situations and laid less emphasis on crying to the song “All By Myself”.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King of Comedy (1983) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
While I vaguely knew the name of the film I'd never seen it and didn't really get the vibe that I wanted to, after seeing the Joker though I was hit by so many comments on it in reviews that I really needed to see it.
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated You're Next (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Finding a good horror film has been a little like a prompt train over the last few years, they are few and far between. However, 2013 has produced more than its fair share of movies within the genre, with the excellent The Purge, released earlier this year; Insidious 2, which is in cinemas this autumn and of course, the subject of this review; You’re Next. But can this modern horror film deliver the thrills and spills of those of yesteryear?
Relative newcomer Adam Wingard directs this rather formulaic home invasion film with some nice creative touches and a rousing score, borrowing heavily from other similar films like the dire When a Stranger Calls, the excellent The Strangers and the downright ridiculous Black Christmas.
However, what sets You’re Next apart from the pack is in its comic timing. Rather than going for full shock value, the film delivers a comedic edge which is welcome in breaking up the bludgeoning and stabbing, which there is a huge amount of.
The plot is simple, a family gathers at their parents’ large manor house to celebrate an anniversary, only to be taunted and butchered by a group of masked killers intent on ruining the party. There are the usual horror clichés of people being watched from outside, people being crept up on from behind and the gem that is thinking there is someone there and realising it’s just a member of the family, but Wingard keeps it feeling fresh and new throughout.
The acting is generally terrible, as is the case with many horror films, but because the movie never takes itself too seriously, the performances add to the overall effect rather than become an annoyance. One stand-out characterisation is Sharni Vinson as Erin, a larger than life Australian who really comes into her own in the battle between the ever decreasing family and the constant onslaught of the masked murderers.
Whilst not scaling the heights of last year’s Cabin in the Woods, You’re Next really helps show that there is life in a genre which has been inundated with cheap knock-offs, countless sequels and pointless remakes.
It is daft, unoriginal and full of lifeless characters, but as a slice of truly terrifying horror and a piece of laugh out loud dark comedy, it succeeds and is highly recommended.
Relative newcomer Adam Wingard directs this rather formulaic home invasion film with some nice creative touches and a rousing score, borrowing heavily from other similar films like the dire When a Stranger Calls, the excellent The Strangers and the downright ridiculous Black Christmas.
However, what sets You’re Next apart from the pack is in its comic timing. Rather than going for full shock value, the film delivers a comedic edge which is welcome in breaking up the bludgeoning and stabbing, which there is a huge amount of.
The plot is simple, a family gathers at their parents’ large manor house to celebrate an anniversary, only to be taunted and butchered by a group of masked killers intent on ruining the party. There are the usual horror clichés of people being watched from outside, people being crept up on from behind and the gem that is thinking there is someone there and realising it’s just a member of the family, but Wingard keeps it feeling fresh and new throughout.
The acting is generally terrible, as is the case with many horror films, but because the movie never takes itself too seriously, the performances add to the overall effect rather than become an annoyance. One stand-out characterisation is Sharni Vinson as Erin, a larger than life Australian who really comes into her own in the battle between the ever decreasing family and the constant onslaught of the masked murderers.
Whilst not scaling the heights of last year’s Cabin in the Woods, You’re Next really helps show that there is life in a genre which has been inundated with cheap knock-offs, countless sequels and pointless remakes.
It is daft, unoriginal and full of lifeless characters, but as a slice of truly terrifying horror and a piece of laugh out loud dark comedy, it succeeds and is highly recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Slither (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Mixing elements of The Blob, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Creeps and countless other horror films, the new Horror/Comedy Slither has oozed its way into theaters with a mix that will likely delight hardcore horror fans.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Holding the Fort in Books
Jan 13, 2018
The plot was normally what you would expect in this type of novel. What I really loved about this book was the comedy throughout. I wasn’t really expecting some laughs. It made the book stand out and an enjoyable read. The romance within was also nicely done. There were moments where it tore you up inside but at the same time makes you squeal for joy because you were cheering Daniel and Louisa on. But the ending! Oh my the ending got me all girly and squealing. I’d have to say it was one of the most beautiful endings I have read so far.
But my oh my the romance in this book was excellent! The things Daniel does was enough to make you swoon. The chemistry he had with Louisa was also very well done and although there were a few frustrating moments were Louisa could just tell Daniel outright what the truth was, I guess it had to be dragged out to make the story complete (albeit not necessary. You sort of knew what was going to happen once Daniel found out the whole story.)
Louisa is also very likable and her willingness to change paths is admirable and fun to read. I was hoping for two hellions for her to deal with (which the two girls were at first) but Louisa didn’t have to do much to get them to like her (which proves how likable and fun going she was.)
As a non Christian reader, there are moments of the book where it gets preachy but it’s to be expected and one can gloss over those parts. It’s not extremely central to the book if you’re there to just read for the romance and the characters.
I’m looking forward to reading the next few books and I hope they cover the rest of the characters at the fort. I’d love to know more about their stories and hope they find the same happiness Daniel and Louisa did. :)
But my oh my the romance in this book was excellent! The things Daniel does was enough to make you swoon. The chemistry he had with Louisa was also very well done and although there were a few frustrating moments were Louisa could just tell Daniel outright what the truth was, I guess it had to be dragged out to make the story complete (albeit not necessary. You sort of knew what was going to happen once Daniel found out the whole story.)
Louisa is also very likable and her willingness to change paths is admirable and fun to read. I was hoping for two hellions for her to deal with (which the two girls were at first) but Louisa didn’t have to do much to get them to like her (which proves how likable and fun going she was.)
As a non Christian reader, there are moments of the book where it gets preachy but it’s to be expected and one can gloss over those parts. It’s not extremely central to the book if you’re there to just read for the romance and the characters.
I’m looking forward to reading the next few books and I hope they cover the rest of the characters at the fort. I’d love to know more about their stories and hope they find the same happiness Daniel and Louisa did. :)
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Starship Troopers (1997) in Movies
May 30, 2018
It is a great film and in the category of action Sci-Fi one of the best.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Starship Troopers is a great Science Fiction movie. It is based on a book by Robert A. Heinlein. In the future, mankind is exploring the universe and encroach upon the territory of alien bugs and war begins. The insects are only responding to a threat of their territory and are trying to fight off the invaders. The clever use of insects as the aliens makes this film stand apart from other space movies.
The cast is great. It is made up of great actors, many of who at the time were relatively unknown including Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Jake Busey and Denise Richards, mixed with established stars like Clancy Brown, Neil Patrick Harris and Michael Ironside, taking minor roles. The star of the movie is hard to choose between Dina Meyer, Casper Van Dien (both of who suffered injuries while making this, Casper broke a rib and Dina suffered a concussion) and the bugs! However I am going to have to say the bugs are the stars. The use of real and CGI in this film is great. The bugs are a formidable foe and a very creative one. They are numerous and relentless. Cleverly the use of different species of bugs makes for some great surprises.
The battles are epic and bloody. This is not a film for the squeamish, every battle is like a futuristic opening scene to Saving Private Ryan. People die in horrific ways, bodies and limbs are ripped apart and even main characters don't always survive, something I always appreciate in a film as it keeps the viewer guessing.
But it is not all about war, there is a good amount of comedy and even romance in this movie. It is a great film and in the category of action Sci-Fi one of the best.
The cast is great. It is made up of great actors, many of who at the time were relatively unknown including Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Jake Busey and Denise Richards, mixed with established stars like Clancy Brown, Neil Patrick Harris and Michael Ironside, taking minor roles. The star of the movie is hard to choose between Dina Meyer, Casper Van Dien (both of who suffered injuries while making this, Casper broke a rib and Dina suffered a concussion) and the bugs! However I am going to have to say the bugs are the stars. The use of real and CGI in this film is great. The bugs are a formidable foe and a very creative one. They are numerous and relentless. Cleverly the use of different species of bugs makes for some great surprises.
The battles are epic and bloody. This is not a film for the squeamish, every battle is like a futuristic opening scene to Saving Private Ryan. People die in horrific ways, bodies and limbs are ripped apart and even main characters don't always survive, something I always appreciate in a film as it keeps the viewer guessing.
But it is not all about war, there is a good amount of comedy and even romance in this movie. It is a great film and in the category of action Sci-Fi one of the best.
A Curious History of Sex
10.0
Rate It
Book
‘Buckle your trousers, fasten your seatbelts, here comes Kate Lister. Her curious history of sex...
Sex Sexuality History of sex and sexuality Sex Workers History of gynaecology
Jamie (131 KP) rated Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Noah’s wit and charm (1 more)
Frank discussions of racism, poverty, and family
A stellar memoir
For those that don’t already know who Trevor Noah is, he is a comedian from South Africa that is now the current host of The Daily Show, taking the place of Jon Stewart when he retired. Trevor is an accomplished polyglot, speaking 9 languages fluently and has some fluency in several more. In much of his comedy he talks about his difficulties with racial identity having been born during apartheid to an African mother and a Swiss father. Apartheid was a system of institutionalized segregation in South Africa that lasted from the 1940’s to the 1990’s.
The book is bursting at the seams with humorous anecdotes about growing up as the wild child in his family. Getting in trouble, trying to outrun and outsmart his mom, committing petty crimes with friends, striking out with girls; Trevor’s life was colorful in no small part because of his mother. In interviews Trevor has stated that his memoir became sort of an open love letter to his mother, Patricia Noah–a fiercely independent woman that refused to be held down by her race or gender and sought to show her son the world outside of apartheid South Africa, who tried to save her son from the cruelty of the world.
“The world doesn’t love you. If the police get you, the police don’t love you. When I beat you, I’m trying to save you. When they beat you, they’re trying to kill you.”
The last chapters had me sobbing which was something that I hadn’t anticipated. Trevor mentions his step-father in the early chapters in passing, like a dark cloud that hung over his family’s life. I wasn’t prepared for the deeply troubling and heartbreaking portrait of a loving family ripped apart by abuse and the failures of law enforcement to prevent tragedy despite numerous attempts to get help.
I was already a fan of Trevor Noah, having watched some of his stand-up comedy and was overjoyed when he took over The Daily Show. From this memoir I have a newfound respect for Trevor not only for the horrendous abuse and racism he has endured, but how he allowed these things to shape who he is. He approaches issues of race, identity, poverty, and abuse with honesty and was able to articulate his feelings on topics that I have been struggling with for years. This memoir was surprisingly cathartic to me as someone that has struggled both with a mixed racial background and as a survivor of domestic abuse.
This was a wonderful memoir that really showcased that even in the darkest of places one can still find hope and strength in love. It was both insightful and laugh out loud funny, even if some of the humor could be viewed as highly offensive. I really enjoyed this memoir and am happy that I read it, it’s definitely going down on my shelf as a favorite.
The book is bursting at the seams with humorous anecdotes about growing up as the wild child in his family. Getting in trouble, trying to outrun and outsmart his mom, committing petty crimes with friends, striking out with girls; Trevor’s life was colorful in no small part because of his mother. In interviews Trevor has stated that his memoir became sort of an open love letter to his mother, Patricia Noah–a fiercely independent woman that refused to be held down by her race or gender and sought to show her son the world outside of apartheid South Africa, who tried to save her son from the cruelty of the world.
“The world doesn’t love you. If the police get you, the police don’t love you. When I beat you, I’m trying to save you. When they beat you, they’re trying to kill you.”
The last chapters had me sobbing which was something that I hadn’t anticipated. Trevor mentions his step-father in the early chapters in passing, like a dark cloud that hung over his family’s life. I wasn’t prepared for the deeply troubling and heartbreaking portrait of a loving family ripped apart by abuse and the failures of law enforcement to prevent tragedy despite numerous attempts to get help.
I was already a fan of Trevor Noah, having watched some of his stand-up comedy and was overjoyed when he took over The Daily Show. From this memoir I have a newfound respect for Trevor not only for the horrendous abuse and racism he has endured, but how he allowed these things to shape who he is. He approaches issues of race, identity, poverty, and abuse with honesty and was able to articulate his feelings on topics that I have been struggling with for years. This memoir was surprisingly cathartic to me as someone that has struggled both with a mixed racial background and as a survivor of domestic abuse.
This was a wonderful memoir that really showcased that even in the darkest of places one can still find hope and strength in love. It was both insightful and laugh out loud funny, even if some of the humor could be viewed as highly offensive. I really enjoyed this memoir and am happy that I read it, it’s definitely going down on my shelf as a favorite.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I think that almost everyone has some knowledge of Laurel and Hardy. Certainly growing up with a love of black and white comedies meant that I saw a fair few myself. There's certainly a familiarity in what we see from Coogan and Reilly that brings a smile to your face. The main problem is that it's such a hard act to follow. I can't say that I'm left raving about what was presented. It's a charming film... I'm just not sure if that's a compliment or not.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The People Vs. Larry Flynt (1996) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
The tragedy. The comedy. The pornography.
Not many filmmakers can say they won two Oscars and for Best Director in two different decades and were nominated a third time in a different decade. The recently deceased movie maestro Milos Forman is one that could.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.