Search
Search results
BookInspector (124 KP) rated On the Bright Side in Books
Sep 24, 2020
More reviews can be found on https://bbookinspector.wordpress.com
This is the second diary of Mr H. Groen, where he shares with the reader a year of his life in one of Amsterdam’s elderly care homes, and I really found it fascinating. I didn’t have the chance to read his first diary, however, I found that this book can be easily understood by a first-time reader like myself because Hendrik does a great job by introducing and describing all the residents of his care home.
The main character in this book is, of course, Hendrik Groen, and the whole book was told from his perspective. I found him absolutely adorable. He is incredibly bright minded, funny, and interesting personality. I really enjoyed the way he introduced all his friends and nemesis, his and Everet’s (best friend) sarcastic thoughts and actions got me laughing out loud many times. I liked the way Hendrik showed through his diary, that elderly care homes can be an actually fun place to be, where you are occupied and never alone. And when I will grow old I would not mind spending my old days in such establishment.
Even though this book was from author’s perspective, Hendrik shared many events which he saw on TV or read it in papers throughout the year of 2015, and I loved the way he incorporated different resident’s thoughts about those events. My most favourite thing in this book was the Old-But-Not-Dead club and their members. Even though they hardly can walk, they still choose to explore life and it’s offerings, and it is just admirable. I think this book is very relatable to all the elderly because Groen is sharing not only good stuff and jokes, he is sharing the cruel reality as well. And I did like that a lot, it makes it more realistic and believable.
The writing style is easy to read and very witty, sarcastic and enjoyable. I had to twist my tongue a little bit while pronouncing the Dutch surnames, but that didn’t bother me much. The chapters are short and sweet and the book went quite quick for me. It has a lot of going on in every chapter, but sometimes my mind tended to wonder of, as it was a little bit monotonous sometimes. Hendrik ended this book with a very positive message and big hopes for his fiction novel, which I will be waiting impatiently for. So, to conclude, if your grandparents are still alive, you have to get them this book. I bet they would be able to relate and if not they would have a great laugh while reading it. I had an emotional rollercoaster while reading it, it made happy, pity, sad, excited, and It just made me respect our elderly more, because they all are different, unique and fascinating. I strongly recommend it to all as it is a perfect insight into our possible future. Enjoy 🙂
This is the second diary of Mr H. Groen, where he shares with the reader a year of his life in one of Amsterdam’s elderly care homes, and I really found it fascinating. I didn’t have the chance to read his first diary, however, I found that this book can be easily understood by a first-time reader like myself because Hendrik does a great job by introducing and describing all the residents of his care home.
The main character in this book is, of course, Hendrik Groen, and the whole book was told from his perspective. I found him absolutely adorable. He is incredibly bright minded, funny, and interesting personality. I really enjoyed the way he introduced all his friends and nemesis, his and Everet’s (best friend) sarcastic thoughts and actions got me laughing out loud many times. I liked the way Hendrik showed through his diary, that elderly care homes can be an actually fun place to be, where you are occupied and never alone. And when I will grow old I would not mind spending my old days in such establishment.
Even though this book was from author’s perspective, Hendrik shared many events which he saw on TV or read it in papers throughout the year of 2015, and I loved the way he incorporated different resident’s thoughts about those events. My most favourite thing in this book was the Old-But-Not-Dead club and their members. Even though they hardly can walk, they still choose to explore life and it’s offerings, and it is just admirable. I think this book is very relatable to all the elderly because Groen is sharing not only good stuff and jokes, he is sharing the cruel reality as well. And I did like that a lot, it makes it more realistic and believable.
The writing style is easy to read and very witty, sarcastic and enjoyable. I had to twist my tongue a little bit while pronouncing the Dutch surnames, but that didn’t bother me much. The chapters are short and sweet and the book went quite quick for me. It has a lot of going on in every chapter, but sometimes my mind tended to wonder of, as it was a little bit monotonous sometimes. Hendrik ended this book with a very positive message and big hopes for his fiction novel, which I will be waiting impatiently for. So, to conclude, if your grandparents are still alive, you have to get them this book. I bet they would be able to relate and if not they would have a great laugh while reading it. I had an emotional rollercoaster while reading it, it made happy, pity, sad, excited, and It just made me respect our elderly more, because they all are different, unique and fascinating. I strongly recommend it to all as it is a perfect insight into our possible future. Enjoy 🙂
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Kim Possible (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
My name is Emma, and I still love Kim Possible. It's great fun and I will fight anyone who says it isn't. That is if we're talking about the animated series... that is gold, the live action film is not even tin foil.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Immortal (2019) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
You can't stop what's coming.
l'immortale is a good companion piece to possibly the greatest TV show of all time gomorra & while it does shed a bit more light on what sort of the life one of its best characters had at a younger age and where he is now i can't help but feel it's tainted one of the best twists the show has to offer overall. (WARNING: spoilers for gomorrah ahead but if your watching this anyway before you have seen the show I'd strongly advise not to). After surviving the incident on the boat at the end of season 3 Ciro begins a new life in Latvia caught working between Russian clans in Latvia. Long gone now are the days of him being a top dog & while he still has a certain celebrity status among people here he is undoubtedly someone else's bitch. He's a man that has absolutely nothing left to loose now & it's finally stating to take a toll on him mentally and physically. Marco D'Amore again is fantastic here & this time plays a more subjude Ciro. As a character he lacks confidence now & walks around with less pride & cockynes, he's not as sure of himself & personality wise he's alot quieter & socially distantanced. He also spends a lot of time thinking in silence, just remenising & taking in the scenery almost like life itself bores him now & he is just waiting for the day to come where someone puts him down. Marco D'Amore plays this character perfectly as always & as a viewer its great to see the mighty Ciro from a different light & helps us to feel his pain connecting with him in an alternative way to which we usually do. Marco D'Amore is also the director this time too & as a first film it's a really great effort but also at the same time he seems to really struggle finding an identity of his own & here lies my biggest problem with the movie. Far to often it feels like he's trying to just replicate Gomorra instead of taking the regins & putting his own spin on things (a bit like what ryan gosling did with the lost river trying to initiate nwr). Don't get me wrong is very similar to Gommora but it's not as griping, powerful, raw, gritty, impactful & full of tension like the show is & thus most of the scenes that use the same format either feel a bit hollow or off in some way. I did really enjoy the flash back scenes & seeing Ciro's upbringing & other tragidies that happen back then certainly do a great job of explaining why he's generally such a cold hearted desensitised person. What I can't understand is the main plot & that's mainly because the characters life had a fitting conclusion at the end of Gomorra season 3 so bringing him back now randomly for a movie just makes a very realistically grounded show seem a bit far fetched because while he maybe nicknamed the immortal after all he's still only human. All in all if it had just been a prequel film I think I'd of enjoyed it a lot more however if your a fan of the show & it's characters I would recommend seeing this as it definitely fills the time while waiting for season 5 & it absolutely proves Marco D'Amore shows promise as a director too.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
The Illusion of Choice
Contains spoilers, click to show
I should preface this review by saying a few things. First of all, I don't like Black Mirror. I have watched a handful of episodes from the first season and always felt like it wasn't as clever as it tried to be. I do however like Charlie Brooker, I am a fan of his 'Wipe,' shows and I like his no bullshit personality. Lastly, I am not a fan of games or books where the audience is asked to choose the path they want to take. I believe that the writer of the movie/game/book should be the one to dictate where the story goes, not Joe Bloggs sitting on his couch covered in Doritos powder.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stumptown: The Case of the Girl Who Took Her Shampoo: Volume 1 in Books
May 21, 2020
After spotting in the trailer for the TV adaptation that it was based on a book I nipped off to order it straight away... I think it's great that people can see the potential in books that will make an interesting adaptation, with Stumptown I find that particularly impressive because I didn't find it that gripping. This first volume is four issues with one storyline and beyond that there are three more books which I haven't read, potentially there are things I picked up on that are resolved in later volumes. If that is the case though it's a bit of a problem for me because I don't really want to read any more of them.
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine in Books
Dec 24, 2017
funny (3 more)
heartbreaking
tender
beautiful
Eleanor Oliphant leads a simple, albeit lonely, life. Up in the morning, head to work, and heads down at the office (with a solo break for lunch and the crossword). She spends her evenings and weekends alone--typically with a book, the TV, and a lot vodka. Every Wednesday evening, she speaks on the phone with her mother (Mummy)-- always a painful conversation as her mother is judgemental and exacting. Then one day, Eleanor and Raymond, the slightly oafish IT guy from her office, save the elderly Sammy, who has fallen on the sidewalk. The act turns out to change Eleanor's life--bringing her into Sammy's life and that of his boisterous family--and involving her more with Raymond, as well. Suddenly, it's almost as if Eleanor and Raymond are friends and Eleanor isn't completely lonely anymore. But can her friendship with Raymond erase the sadness in her life?
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender. My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful.
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. One of my favorites so far this year.
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender. My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful.
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. One of my favorites so far this year.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst in TV
Jun 27, 2018 (Updated Jun 27, 2018)
Mindblowing
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have been on a bit of a documentary kick lately and my most recent watch was the Jinx. I never watched this show back when it aired in 2015, or followed the story at the time, so I went into this show knowing very little about the tale it was telling. I'd say if you are in the same boat, then that is probably the best way to go into this doc. There are only six parts to the doc, so it can be binged over a few nights or in one day. Don't look up anything about it before watching and just go in blind, by the end your mind will be blown.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Eleanor Oliphant leads a simple, albeit lonely, life. Up in the morning, head to work, and heads down at the office (with a solo break for lunch and the crossword). She spends her evenings and weekends alone--typically with a book, the TV, and a lot vodka. Every Wednesday evening, she speaks on the phone with her mother (Mummy)-- always a painful conversation as her mother is judgemental and exacting. Then one day, Eleanor and Raymond, the slightly oafish IT guy from her office, save the elderly Sammy, who has fallen on the sidewalk. The act turns out to change Eleanor's life--bringing her into Sammy's life and that of his boisterous family--and involving her more with Raymond, as well. Suddenly, it's almost as if Eleanor and Raymond are friends and Eleanor isn't completely lonely anymore. But can her friendship with Raymond erase the sadness in her life?
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. <i>I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. </i> Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. <i>The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender.</i> My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. <i>The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful. </i>
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is a lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. <i>One of my favorites so far this year.</i> 4.5 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. <i>I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. </i> Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. <i>The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender.</i> My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. <i>The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful. </i>
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is a lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. <i>One of my favorites so far this year.</i> 4.5 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.