Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
Home yoga practice
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
What is preventing you from living your life to the fullest TODAY? Body aches? Stress? Your mood? ...
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Unfaithful: The Deception of Night in Books
May 23, 2019
As I look back at Unfaithful, all I can think is wow. This book had some unexpected twists and turns, that leave you breathless and riddled with anxiety. It was a nice continuation from the first book with some real anxiety ridden situations. I loved that we got to see more of the others: Ginerva, Simon, and Drake. I loved getting to know these character more. However, I found that not everything as it seems to be. I guess that is to be expected when you are dating an Angel of Death. I also enjoyed learning more about how the Evan and his brothers are created and chosen. There was so much information in this book, that at times it was hard to absorb it all, while continuing the story without pausing to take a moment to think about what you just read.
Let me first discuss Evan. Though we don't see a whole bunch from his point of view this time around, it was definitely nice to learn about his past and how his kind works. Although, I wished we could have had more of him in the book, it was nice to learn more about the others in his family. I think I really enjoyed learning about how he met each member in his family after his death. I also very much enjoyed learning about how each member had an impact on the others. Seeing how he was saved by a Witch, Ginerva, who was with Simon, was amazing to see. I also enjoyed him explaining how the forbidden fruit that Eve ate was the same that gave Evan and his kind the nutrition they needed to stay alive and how without consuming it they would just end up dead, instead of becoming the angels they were destined to become to pay their way into Eden.
Evan had even explained some of his family to Gemma, which helped shed a new light on them. I believe what little information was given, really helped give these characters a better feel. It made you feel sorry or sad for how things had come to be. To even see how close to Gemma that they had grown to be, was a pleasant sight to see. It made the character intertwine together better than before. However, with Drake's crazy antics and the ever threatening danger around the corner, you can't help but wonder what was really going on.
At one point, you are introduces to Eden and the details to describe it left you breathless. I can't help but wonder if my imagination even done it justice. I believe the details were amazing and definitely breathtaking. However, I think even with the details, that I would have loved to see more of it. Though it was very hard to believe such a place could exist, after all it is supposed to be our Heaven, I think I would have definitely needed to see more to be satisfied. This is on of the things in the book that made me want more of it, knowing I may never be able to visit it again.
--This next part is a spoiler so please read at your own risk.--
I have to say that the ending with Evan dying has me extremely upset. I am not sure what happened and even now I am sitting her unsure of what happened. I had cried out in frustration. It was definitely not a satisfying ending. With what Gemma tells Evan as he dies, and what happens with their supposed threat, I can't help but count down the minutes until I can start the next book. This book definitely gave me lots to think about. For example, how nothing is certain in life. There are many things, people and situations that can lead you to the wrong conclusions or paths to take. I feel this book had given so many things to be processed and though about, that people could easily lose themselves in thought, just from the situations, like deception, and ideas of places unseen by us alone.
Overall I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. It was breathtaking, detailed, and kept you in suspense. There were a few very sweet moments that made you long for romance like that in your personal life, but kept everything in the right perspective. I definitely think that I learned that I should live to the fullest, for you never know when death is waiting for you. I think this series has been amazing so far and can't wait to finish it. It definitely makes you want more and with and ending that doesn't answer the important questions, it definitely feels like the cliffhanger at the end of your favorite show to keep you waiting for the next season to figure out what the next thing is going to be.
Let me first discuss Evan. Though we don't see a whole bunch from his point of view this time around, it was definitely nice to learn about his past and how his kind works. Although, I wished we could have had more of him in the book, it was nice to learn more about the others in his family. I think I really enjoyed learning about how he met each member in his family after his death. I also very much enjoyed learning about how each member had an impact on the others. Seeing how he was saved by a Witch, Ginerva, who was with Simon, was amazing to see. I also enjoyed him explaining how the forbidden fruit that Eve ate was the same that gave Evan and his kind the nutrition they needed to stay alive and how without consuming it they would just end up dead, instead of becoming the angels they were destined to become to pay their way into Eden.
Evan had even explained some of his family to Gemma, which helped shed a new light on them. I believe what little information was given, really helped give these characters a better feel. It made you feel sorry or sad for how things had come to be. To even see how close to Gemma that they had grown to be, was a pleasant sight to see. It made the character intertwine together better than before. However, with Drake's crazy antics and the ever threatening danger around the corner, you can't help but wonder what was really going on.
At one point, you are introduces to Eden and the details to describe it left you breathless. I can't help but wonder if my imagination even done it justice. I believe the details were amazing and definitely breathtaking. However, I think even with the details, that I would have loved to see more of it. Though it was very hard to believe such a place could exist, after all it is supposed to be our Heaven, I think I would have definitely needed to see more to be satisfied. This is on of the things in the book that made me want more of it, knowing I may never be able to visit it again.
--This next part is a spoiler so please read at your own risk.--
I have to say that the ending with Evan dying has me extremely upset. I am not sure what happened and even now I am sitting her unsure of what happened. I had cried out in frustration. It was definitely not a satisfying ending. With what Gemma tells Evan as he dies, and what happens with their supposed threat, I can't help but count down the minutes until I can start the next book. This book definitely gave me lots to think about. For example, how nothing is certain in life. There are many things, people and situations that can lead you to the wrong conclusions or paths to take. I feel this book had given so many things to be processed and though about, that people could easily lose themselves in thought, just from the situations, like deception, and ideas of places unseen by us alone.
Overall I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. It was breathtaking, detailed, and kept you in suspense. There were a few very sweet moments that made you long for romance like that in your personal life, but kept everything in the right perspective. I definitely think that I learned that I should live to the fullest, for you never know when death is waiting for you. I think this series has been amazing so far and can't wait to finish it. It definitely makes you want more and with and ending that doesn't answer the important questions, it definitely feels like the cliffhanger at the end of your favorite show to keep you waiting for the next season to figure out what the next thing is going to be.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Fractured Dream (The Dreamer Saga, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
In all honesty, Fractured Dream felt as though I was dragging a big sack of potatoes around and trying to find a place to put them... yet finding nowhere. And it's just bad when I take a chunk out of veggie chips during 2-3 hours of complete peace and quiet when I should have taken more chunk out of the book. Apparently, the veggie chips were more interesting, because I normally have no problems reading a 400-500+ paged book.
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Wicked Thing (A Wicked Thing, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
My all-time favorite Disney movie (in VCR) – along with Pocahontas and Mulan, to which there are literally zilch retellings to my knowledge – while growing up was <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. I even reenacted it... for fun and on my own (expected of a four or five year old).
And perhaps it is also one of the most difficult tales to be retold. There's a princess who has a curse placed on her that she would prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel before her sixteenth birthday and die – not entirely too much to take a spin on, is there?
No pun intended.
Much as I give props to Rhiannon Thomas for taking <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> on another path, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> is certainly not a book I would enjoy even for the pleasure of reading. In fact, truth be told in maybe a harsh way, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> was funny. And while funny typically means a good thing, I honestly had a field day reading the first three chapters in between chess matches and poking fun at the book (aka making sassy comments that will make no appearance whatsoever in this review aside from a big basket of mozzarella sticks).
<i>A Wicked Thing</i> is almost a sequel to the original <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. Some time has passed, and then the prince kisses Aurora – all that jazz is pretty much the same aside from maybe happily ever after, to which I won't bother finding out. Perhaps there <i>is</i> a happily ever after by the end of the book – I'm still not going to go and find out because I'm too focused on making it to at least the top 10 in the class now that I'm extremely close to it.
But let's start with the prince kisses Aurora. She wakes up and screams. It probably makes sense to scream when you wake up to a random stranger hovering above your face and actually kissed you. Honestly, a pretty fantastic opening scene – and I'm serious – aside from the part where the "boy" (we don't know he's a prince YET) says, "I did it. I actually did it."
Then I get a sled and start laughing gleefully (read: found it absolutely amusing) while sliding down a hill (read: continuing the book just see how it all plays out because I haven't found reasons to throw this aside yet and then I do).
Prince Rodric, the "boy," is pathetic. The <i>royal family</i>, in my opinion, is a little pathetic and cheesy. Are they actually pathetic? Perhaps not when you really get to know them and perhaps they're marvelous rulers and the people love them oh-so-dearly, but from the little bit of the book that I read and met the royal family, I find myself disappointed. Particularly disappointed in Rodric the princeling because he will obviously make a huge appearance throughout the rest of the book and I've got to at least like the main characters to enjoy the book.
The dear prince blushes <i>at almost every single sentence he speaks to Aurora</i>. I'm pretty sure the amount of blushes will be the equal amount of election commercials soon (Vote for me! Vote for me!).
<blockquote>He stopped and blushed again.</blockquote>
Princeling probably stutters as well, and is most likely a descendant of Romeo.
<blockquote>“I mean, you always look beautiful. But you look especially beautiful tonight. Is what I mean.”</blockquote>
The king is overly cheery, and while there seems to be a probable reason (my son woke up a slumbering princess!), "overly cheery" really means "exuberantly happy-go-lucky."
<blockquote>“Please send out the heralds. A little extra pomp and circumstance, if you please. It is hardly a normal day.”</blockquote>
No... definitely not a normal day. That much I'll agreee with. But isn't celebrating as soon as Aurora wakes up a little overboard? The chick just woke up from a hundred plus years of slumber and everything literally comes crashing down over on her head upside down! I'm not sure Aurora appreciated that – she was quite confuzzled when she woke up (whoa... what's going on here?!) and even protested a little (not that anyone heard her).
Betsy the maid babbles in excitement and is worse than the king.
<blockquote>“I was so honored, Princess, when they asked me to assist you. I never expected it! But then, I never expected you’d be standing here, if you don’t mind me saying. Not that I didn’t think Rodric could be your true love, because of course he’s wonderful, but it always seemed too much like a dream to ever happen while I was here. Things will be amazing, now, you’ll see. Everyone loves you already. How could they not?”</blockquote>
Reasonable babbling of excitement, seeing as she's a humble servant.
But she and everyone else aside from Aurora is also a little naïve with the assumption that everything is going to be fantastic and happily ever after Aurora and Rodric marry, simply based a fairy tale.
Aurora, however, might have been a character that I would actually like had I continued the book. But by that point in the novel, when Rodric and Aurora are first dining together, I was quite cheesed (it was the constant blushing and cheeriness). While I normally feel guilty for throwing a book aside really early, I don't think I feel too guilty in <i>A Wicked Thing's</i> case.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-wicked-thing-by-rhiannon-thomas/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
My all-time favorite Disney movie (in VCR) – along with Pocahontas and Mulan, to which there are literally zilch retellings to my knowledge – while growing up was <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. I even reenacted it... for fun and on my own (expected of a four or five year old).
And perhaps it is also one of the most difficult tales to be retold. There's a princess who has a curse placed on her that she would prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel before her sixteenth birthday and die – not entirely too much to take a spin on, is there?
No pun intended.
Much as I give props to Rhiannon Thomas for taking <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> on another path, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> is certainly not a book I would enjoy even for the pleasure of reading. In fact, truth be told in maybe a harsh way, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> was funny. And while funny typically means a good thing, I honestly had a field day reading the first three chapters in between chess matches and poking fun at the book (aka making sassy comments that will make no appearance whatsoever in this review aside from a big basket of mozzarella sticks).
<i>A Wicked Thing</i> is almost a sequel to the original <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. Some time has passed, and then the prince kisses Aurora – all that jazz is pretty much the same aside from maybe happily ever after, to which I won't bother finding out. Perhaps there <i>is</i> a happily ever after by the end of the book – I'm still not going to go and find out because I'm too focused on making it to at least the top 10 in the class now that I'm extremely close to it.
But let's start with the prince kisses Aurora. She wakes up and screams. It probably makes sense to scream when you wake up to a random stranger hovering above your face and actually kissed you. Honestly, a pretty fantastic opening scene – and I'm serious – aside from the part where the "boy" (we don't know he's a prince YET) says, "I did it. I actually did it."
Then I get a sled and start laughing gleefully (read: found it absolutely amusing) while sliding down a hill (read: continuing the book just see how it all plays out because I haven't found reasons to throw this aside yet and then I do).
Prince Rodric, the "boy," is pathetic. The <i>royal family</i>, in my opinion, is a little pathetic and cheesy. Are they actually pathetic? Perhaps not when you really get to know them and perhaps they're marvelous rulers and the people love them oh-so-dearly, but from the little bit of the book that I read and met the royal family, I find myself disappointed. Particularly disappointed in Rodric the princeling because he will obviously make a huge appearance throughout the rest of the book and I've got to at least like the main characters to enjoy the book.
The dear prince blushes <i>at almost every single sentence he speaks to Aurora</i>. I'm pretty sure the amount of blushes will be the equal amount of election commercials soon (Vote for me! Vote for me!).
<blockquote>He stopped and blushed again.</blockquote>
Princeling probably stutters as well, and is most likely a descendant of Romeo.
<blockquote>“I mean, you always look beautiful. But you look especially beautiful tonight. Is what I mean.”</blockquote>
The king is overly cheery, and while there seems to be a probable reason (my son woke up a slumbering princess!), "overly cheery" really means "exuberantly happy-go-lucky."
<blockquote>“Please send out the heralds. A little extra pomp and circumstance, if you please. It is hardly a normal day.”</blockquote>
No... definitely not a normal day. That much I'll agreee with. But isn't celebrating as soon as Aurora wakes up a little overboard? The chick just woke up from a hundred plus years of slumber and everything literally comes crashing down over on her head upside down! I'm not sure Aurora appreciated that – she was quite confuzzled when she woke up (whoa... what's going on here?!) and even protested a little (not that anyone heard her).
Betsy the maid babbles in excitement and is worse than the king.
<blockquote>“I was so honored, Princess, when they asked me to assist you. I never expected it! But then, I never expected you’d be standing here, if you don’t mind me saying. Not that I didn’t think Rodric could be your true love, because of course he’s wonderful, but it always seemed too much like a dream to ever happen while I was here. Things will be amazing, now, you’ll see. Everyone loves you already. How could they not?”</blockquote>
Reasonable babbling of excitement, seeing as she's a humble servant.
But she and everyone else aside from Aurora is also a little naïve with the assumption that everything is going to be fantastic and happily ever after Aurora and Rodric marry, simply based a fairy tale.
Aurora, however, might have been a character that I would actually like had I continued the book. But by that point in the novel, when Rodric and Aurora are first dining together, I was quite cheesed (it was the constant blushing and cheeriness). While I normally feel guilty for throwing a book aside really early, I don't think I feel too guilty in <i>A Wicked Thing's</i> case.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-wicked-thing-by-rhiannon-thomas/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hustle (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I love Anne Hathaway. I love Rebel Wilson. I love Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. I did not love this.
Penny is a small-time con artist who decides to head to Europe to change things up a bit. Josephine is at the top of the con artist charts and is living very comfortably in Europe making a mint off the wealthy gentlemen who cross her path. When Penny stumbles onto her train she realises that the crass American could bring too much attention so she sets about sabotaging her plans. Penny is more resourceful than she seems though and soon makes her way back into Josephine's life.
I did laugh at a couple of points, but it really wasn't the bright and bubbly comedy I'd been hoping for. There are some definite hangovers that they've kept in that stick out in a modern film. The opening titles and some of the music are very reminiscent of older comedic movies and honestly seemed like a bad choice. You're remaking something, go the whole hog or don't bother.
Hathaway & Wilson do work well together as a comedy duo. The training montage was quite possibly the best bit and I enjoyed the teacher/student dynamic that they had. Beyond this though the film seemed to lack genuine comedy and instead relied on pratfalls. I don't know if it's just that it doesn't feel right that these two were doing this humour or that this humour doesn't have the same standing in films as it used to, but it left me disappointed.
Anne Hathaway is a stunning trickster with the accent of a stereotypical aristocrat. Listening to that in the trailers annoyed me, the film was no better. Admittedly it does change throughout to accommodate the con but it rears it's ugly head enough times to make you remember it.
Rebel Wilson was... Rebel Wilson, I'm not sure she had any other setting, and I don't think that matters for this. It's the perfect part for her and she actually does get some moments of seriousness to deal with. I think this was the perfect bit of casting.
I wish I could remember Dirty Rotten Scoundrels to see how much they kept but it has been a very long time since I watched it. Even without that memory I can tell you it isn't a fitting tribute to it, or to the genre sadly.
What you should do
At some point it'll stream and if there's nothing else to do it might be worth watching. I'm not sure you need to go out of your way to find it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'll take some of the poise and agility that Josephine has, please and thank you.
Penny is a small-time con artist who decides to head to Europe to change things up a bit. Josephine is at the top of the con artist charts and is living very comfortably in Europe making a mint off the wealthy gentlemen who cross her path. When Penny stumbles onto her train she realises that the crass American could bring too much attention so she sets about sabotaging her plans. Penny is more resourceful than she seems though and soon makes her way back into Josephine's life.
I did laugh at a couple of points, but it really wasn't the bright and bubbly comedy I'd been hoping for. There are some definite hangovers that they've kept in that stick out in a modern film. The opening titles and some of the music are very reminiscent of older comedic movies and honestly seemed like a bad choice. You're remaking something, go the whole hog or don't bother.
Hathaway & Wilson do work well together as a comedy duo. The training montage was quite possibly the best bit and I enjoyed the teacher/student dynamic that they had. Beyond this though the film seemed to lack genuine comedy and instead relied on pratfalls. I don't know if it's just that it doesn't feel right that these two were doing this humour or that this humour doesn't have the same standing in films as it used to, but it left me disappointed.
Anne Hathaway is a stunning trickster with the accent of a stereotypical aristocrat. Listening to that in the trailers annoyed me, the film was no better. Admittedly it does change throughout to accommodate the con but it rears it's ugly head enough times to make you remember it.
Rebel Wilson was... Rebel Wilson, I'm not sure she had any other setting, and I don't think that matters for this. It's the perfect part for her and she actually does get some moments of seriousness to deal with. I think this was the perfect bit of casting.
I wish I could remember Dirty Rotten Scoundrels to see how much they kept but it has been a very long time since I watched it. Even without that memory I can tell you it isn't a fitting tribute to it, or to the genre sadly.
What you should do
At some point it'll stream and if there's nothing else to do it might be worth watching. I'm not sure you need to go out of your way to find it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'll take some of the poise and agility that Josephine has, please and thank you.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Da 5 Bloods (2020) in Movies
Jun 19, 2020
Delroy Lindo shines in a mostly good film
Over the years, I have become a fan of Spike Lee. I think he has a singular vision as a filmmaker with his films putting a spotlight on the black experience and the prejudices and injustices that prevail.
DA 5 BLOODS - Lee's Vietnam War movie - is no exception.
Set in present(ish) day and in the memories of the main characters from their time "in country", DA 5 BLOODS tells the tale of 4 Vietnam Veterans who return to find the body of their squadron leader - and the gold that they buried under his body.
Part Vietnam war flick, part gold heist (and the cost of this theft on the hearts and minds of the participants) and part reflection on the treatment of the black soldiers, Lee reaches high to combine 3 separate - and complex - films into one (any one of which could have been a film of their own) and it is here that this films succeeds - and fails. For this film is at moments riveting, at moments unflinching and hard to watch, at moments confusing and at moments...surprisingly... dull. Spike had a lot of movie to tell and he took 2 and a 1/2 hours to tell it. He would have been better suited to cut some of this down to a more palatable 2-ish hour length. The film bogs down on itself at times.
But when it crackles - it crackles. Especially when the 4 veteran soldiers interact with each other. Led by the great Delroy Lindo (TV's THE GOOD FIGHT). I hope that this film gets a theatrical release sometime (to make it eligible for the Oscars) for Lindo's portrayal of MAGA Hat wearing, PTSD suffering Paul is powerful and captivating. I was riveted by his performance and I was willing to follow him to the ends of the Earth. Also standing out is Clarke Peters as Otis - the heart and soul of this group and Norm Lewis, the pigeon-toed Eddie who has a secret that he is hiding. Both of these characters shine at moments - but are not in the spotlight nearly often enough. The same can be said for Isaih Whitlock Jr as Melvin, a character that is undeserved until the end and by then I felt myself wanting more of him. (Side Note: Lee named these characters after members of THE TEMPTATIONS).
Lee makes an interesting choice in the flashback scenes of the war. Instead of casting younger actors or spending the $$ on "de-aging" the actors (Lee would say that the de-aging was "cost prohibitive"), Lee chooses to have these old guys just play their younger versions of themselves just as they are now, claiming that these are not flashbacks, but "memories" of these soldiers - and I gotta admit that this tactic works very, very well - especially when these 4 older gentlemen are in the Vietnam War scenes with their Platoon Leader played, charismatically, by the much younger Chadwick Boseman. His character is killed in action and since these scenes are memories, it works well that he is younger (he never got a chance to grow old) while all the others are older. Boseman has a an attraction to him that helps the audience buy into the fact that all these years later these 4 men still hold him front and center in their memories. Unfortunately, the combat scenes looks to me like they were done on a shoe-string budget, so Lee has to use "tricks" to pull these scenes off and these tricks bring these scenes down a peg.
As I've stated, this film is really 3 films in one and the effects of the gold on the men is the most interesting part of this film for me, it touches on the desires of the human soul and brings some of the strongest acting and emotions.
This being a Spike Lee joint, this film is peppered with scenes from the black experience - from Martin Luther KIng to Malcom X to "Hanoi Hannah" telling the black troops that their country is abandoning them. These are important events in the lives and psyche of these men (and African Americans) and Mr. Lee is uniquely positioned to bring the attention of the public to these events, and he does it well.
DA 5 BLOODS in now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DA 5 BLOODS - Lee's Vietnam War movie - is no exception.
Set in present(ish) day and in the memories of the main characters from their time "in country", DA 5 BLOODS tells the tale of 4 Vietnam Veterans who return to find the body of their squadron leader - and the gold that they buried under his body.
Part Vietnam war flick, part gold heist (and the cost of this theft on the hearts and minds of the participants) and part reflection on the treatment of the black soldiers, Lee reaches high to combine 3 separate - and complex - films into one (any one of which could have been a film of their own) and it is here that this films succeeds - and fails. For this film is at moments riveting, at moments unflinching and hard to watch, at moments confusing and at moments...surprisingly... dull. Spike had a lot of movie to tell and he took 2 and a 1/2 hours to tell it. He would have been better suited to cut some of this down to a more palatable 2-ish hour length. The film bogs down on itself at times.
But when it crackles - it crackles. Especially when the 4 veteran soldiers interact with each other. Led by the great Delroy Lindo (TV's THE GOOD FIGHT). I hope that this film gets a theatrical release sometime (to make it eligible for the Oscars) for Lindo's portrayal of MAGA Hat wearing, PTSD suffering Paul is powerful and captivating. I was riveted by his performance and I was willing to follow him to the ends of the Earth. Also standing out is Clarke Peters as Otis - the heart and soul of this group and Norm Lewis, the pigeon-toed Eddie who has a secret that he is hiding. Both of these characters shine at moments - but are not in the spotlight nearly often enough. The same can be said for Isaih Whitlock Jr as Melvin, a character that is undeserved until the end and by then I felt myself wanting more of him. (Side Note: Lee named these characters after members of THE TEMPTATIONS).
Lee makes an interesting choice in the flashback scenes of the war. Instead of casting younger actors or spending the $$ on "de-aging" the actors (Lee would say that the de-aging was "cost prohibitive"), Lee chooses to have these old guys just play their younger versions of themselves just as they are now, claiming that these are not flashbacks, but "memories" of these soldiers - and I gotta admit that this tactic works very, very well - especially when these 4 older gentlemen are in the Vietnam War scenes with their Platoon Leader played, charismatically, by the much younger Chadwick Boseman. His character is killed in action and since these scenes are memories, it works well that he is younger (he never got a chance to grow old) while all the others are older. Boseman has a an attraction to him that helps the audience buy into the fact that all these years later these 4 men still hold him front and center in their memories. Unfortunately, the combat scenes looks to me like they were done on a shoe-string budget, so Lee has to use "tricks" to pull these scenes off and these tricks bring these scenes down a peg.
As I've stated, this film is really 3 films in one and the effects of the gold on the men is the most interesting part of this film for me, it touches on the desires of the human soul and brings some of the strongest acting and emotions.
This being a Spike Lee joint, this film is peppered with scenes from the black experience - from Martin Luther KIng to Malcom X to "Hanoi Hannah" telling the black troops that their country is abandoning them. These are important events in the lives and psyche of these men (and African Americans) and Mr. Lee is uniquely positioned to bring the attention of the public to these events, and he does it well.
DA 5 BLOODS in now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) in Movies
Mar 28, 2020
Holds up well - worth your time
I remember really liking THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON when it first was released in 2011. It made me a fan of Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchette, Tilda Swinton, Taraji P. Henson, Jared Harris and Director David Fincher - and I defended this film to those that did not have as high an opinion of this movie than I did. So when my daughter recommended we re-watch this film (a film I haven't watched in 5 or 6 years), I was excited to revisit it.
And...I'm glad I did...for I re-fell in love with the portions of the film that I remembered fondly while I was also able to see the flaws (mostly in pacing) that drops this film down a peg.
Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON tells the tale of a man who ages backwards. His life is chronicled from his birth (right after the "Great War" ended in the 1919) and follows right up to his death.
As played by Brad Pitt in an Oscar nominated turn, the titular character is earnest, honest, somewhat naive and (as he gets younger) very attractive to look at. I've been a fan of Pitt's acting since the days of FIGHT CLUB and 12 MONKEYS (and think he deserved his Oscar for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD) and he does not disappoint in this film, especially since he has quite a few strong performers to play against (even while under heavy make-up).
Jared Harris, Taraji P. Henson (in an Oscar nominated performance) and Mahershala Ali all bring strong, winning performances but is the performances of 2 strong actresses that drew my attention to them from this point forward. Tilda Swinton (SNOWPIERCER) brings a sense of longing to her portrayal of a woman that Benjamin has a brief affair with. Their scenes together are touching and poignant with a sense of sadness that had me rooting for Swinton's character throughout.
But, it is the appearance of Cate Blanchette (THOR: RAGNAROK) that elevates this film for me. I had been a fan of Blanchette's since her Oscar winning role of Katherine Hepburn in THE AVIATOR, but this performance raised her abilities in my eyes and I eagerly await everything that she is going to appear in (including CAROL, a film that I loathe).
Director David Fincher (Se7EN, FIGHT CLUB) was also Oscar nominated for his work in this film and he blends a lifelong love story with events of the day while mixing in some wonderful CGI that helps age (or de-age) Benjamin as the film unfolds. This film, for me, was a departure for Fincher who I came to admire for his trippy films, but he brings a human-ness to the proceedings that helps ground the fantastical into reality.
Upon this viewing, I did find that this film does drag a bit at times - it is as if Fincher (and the cast) fell so in love with the characters and the scenes, that they lose track of the pacing, letting the film bog down from time to time. The film runs 2 hours and 46 minutes...and I think I could help find spots to trim about 20 minutes out of it.
The film did win in 3 of the 13 categories it was Oscar nominated in (it was nominated for BEST FILM, but did not win that award). The Oscar wins were all for special effects of some sort - and I kept looking to see if I could spot the tricks and Special FX in the film - and I could not. A good sign that this film is holding up 9 years later.
Take a trip through time (backwards) with Benjamin Button, it's is worth it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...I'm glad I did...for I re-fell in love with the portions of the film that I remembered fondly while I was also able to see the flaws (mostly in pacing) that drops this film down a peg.
Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON tells the tale of a man who ages backwards. His life is chronicled from his birth (right after the "Great War" ended in the 1919) and follows right up to his death.
As played by Brad Pitt in an Oscar nominated turn, the titular character is earnest, honest, somewhat naive and (as he gets younger) very attractive to look at. I've been a fan of Pitt's acting since the days of FIGHT CLUB and 12 MONKEYS (and think he deserved his Oscar for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD) and he does not disappoint in this film, especially since he has quite a few strong performers to play against (even while under heavy make-up).
Jared Harris, Taraji P. Henson (in an Oscar nominated performance) and Mahershala Ali all bring strong, winning performances but is the performances of 2 strong actresses that drew my attention to them from this point forward. Tilda Swinton (SNOWPIERCER) brings a sense of longing to her portrayal of a woman that Benjamin has a brief affair with. Their scenes together are touching and poignant with a sense of sadness that had me rooting for Swinton's character throughout.
But, it is the appearance of Cate Blanchette (THOR: RAGNAROK) that elevates this film for me. I had been a fan of Blanchette's since her Oscar winning role of Katherine Hepburn in THE AVIATOR, but this performance raised her abilities in my eyes and I eagerly await everything that she is going to appear in (including CAROL, a film that I loathe).
Director David Fincher (Se7EN, FIGHT CLUB) was also Oscar nominated for his work in this film and he blends a lifelong love story with events of the day while mixing in some wonderful CGI that helps age (or de-age) Benjamin as the film unfolds. This film, for me, was a departure for Fincher who I came to admire for his trippy films, but he brings a human-ness to the proceedings that helps ground the fantastical into reality.
Upon this viewing, I did find that this film does drag a bit at times - it is as if Fincher (and the cast) fell so in love with the characters and the scenes, that they lose track of the pacing, letting the film bog down from time to time. The film runs 2 hours and 46 minutes...and I think I could help find spots to trim about 20 minutes out of it.
The film did win in 3 of the 13 categories it was Oscar nominated in (it was nominated for BEST FILM, but did not win that award). The Oscar wins were all for special effects of some sort - and I kept looking to see if I could spot the tricks and Special FX in the film - and I could not. A good sign that this film is holding up 9 years later.
Take a trip through time (backwards) with Benjamin Button, it's is worth it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)