Search
Search results
A gothic boarding school tale that falls flat
Rose Christie is nervous but excited when she's hired on as the new Head of Classics at Caldonbrae Hall, a boarding school for girls in Scotland. A renowned establishment for 150 years, Caldonbrae is a far step above Rose's current teaching gig and will offer a chance to help her mother, who is struggling with MS. Rose is the first external hire in over a decade, making her an immediate outsider, along with her youthful age. She quickly feels over her head at Caldonbrae, where the teachers and students alike seem to lord over her. But soon Rose realizes that everyone seems to be on to a secret, except her. Why did the last Classics teacher, Jane, leave so suddenly? As Rose learns more about Caldonbrae, she quickly realizes it is nothing like she expected.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
I've had more fun at the orthodontist's
Now, before I start, I know I'm likely to be at odds with a lot of viewers on this one. Having had a glance at the IMDB ratings, I can see a lot of arthouse love for this Australian movie. But this really was not for me.
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Falling Short in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first found out about Falling Short, written by Lex Coulton, the blurb promised to be ''fresh, funny and life-affirming''. I am sorry, but no. That is not correct. This book was none of those things. It wasn’t bad at all, but I would prefer describing it as a slow-paced, and confusingly complex in an unsatisfying way.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
One of the most important films in a generation
I don’t think anyone will have any qualms in me saying that the LGBT community is one of the most vastly underrepresented parts of society when it comes to mainstream Hollywood movies.
Sure, we’ve had indie hits like Call Me by Your Name and Moonlight that have also performed well at the Oscars, but the closest we’ve ever gotten to a mass-market crowd pleaser has been Ang Lee’s 2005 flick Brokeback Mountain and if we’re being honest, that wasn’t marketed in a way that made it particularly mainstream.
Aiming to change all that is Love, Simon. Based on the novel Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli, Love, Simon is the first truly mainstream rom-com that features a lead gay character. But is the film a beacon of hope for a massively underrepresented LGBT community or a movie that daren’t go too far?
Everyone deserves a great love story, but for 17-year-old Simon Spier (Nick Robinson), it’s a little more complicated. He hasn’t told his family or friends that he’s gay, and he doesn’t know the identity of the anonymous classmate that he’s fallen for online. Resolving both issues proves hilarious, terrifying and life-changing.
Love, Simon is one of the most important films in a generation. Aiming to please both everyday movie-goers and be sensitive to the issues that gay people face on a daily basis, it needs to tread a very careful line, and I’m pleased to say, it does so beautifully. From the exceptional performances of the entire cast, to the warming attempts at humour, it succeeds on almost every level.
Jurassic World’s Nick Robinson is outstanding as Simon. A 17-year-old who consistently struggles to accept who he truly is would be an incredibly difficult role for even the most seasoned actors to take on, but he really is wonderful to watch. As we journey across his troubled story, the audience feels fully immersed in his actions, even those that are, shall we say, questionable.
The supporting cast too, is excellent. Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel are a great, if slightly underused presence, as Simon’s parents and along with his sister Nora (played by Talitha Bateman), they make an entirely believable family unit and it’s lovely to see them rallying around him when the inevitable ‘outing’ occurs. One touching scene in particular featuring Garner speaking to her son is sure to turn on the waterworks for many.
Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson
Director Greg Berlanti is a relative newcomer to the world of romantic comedy, but he leads with a confidence that makes him appear seasoned at this game. Touching scenes of emotion are nicely interspersed with sequences of genuinely funny comedy – the sign of a great rom-com.
Special mention must go to Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms. Albright, who manages to garner most of the laughs throughout. All of this culminates in a sweet finale that ties together everything that’s happened over the previous 110 minutes very well indeed.
If we’re to look at some of the flaws then it’s fair to say that the story outside of it featuring a gay lead is completely unoriginal. It’s been done before, but that’s kind of its charm. Flipping the classic rom-com story on its head by allowing audiences across the world to see that being gay really isn’t easy is a really nice thing to see.
In a nutshell, Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson. It’ll make you laugh and it’ll make you cry, but this is a touching romantic comedy that will absolutely go down in the history books of film. Like Brokeback Mountain did for the older gay man, Love, Simon can be a shining light for young men who are struggling to accept who they truly are.
Is this a turning point for Hollywood? Well, let’s hope so.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/07/love-simon-review-one-of-the-most-important-films-in-a-generation/
Sure, we’ve had indie hits like Call Me by Your Name and Moonlight that have also performed well at the Oscars, but the closest we’ve ever gotten to a mass-market crowd pleaser has been Ang Lee’s 2005 flick Brokeback Mountain and if we’re being honest, that wasn’t marketed in a way that made it particularly mainstream.
Aiming to change all that is Love, Simon. Based on the novel Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli, Love, Simon is the first truly mainstream rom-com that features a lead gay character. But is the film a beacon of hope for a massively underrepresented LGBT community or a movie that daren’t go too far?
Everyone deserves a great love story, but for 17-year-old Simon Spier (Nick Robinson), it’s a little more complicated. He hasn’t told his family or friends that he’s gay, and he doesn’t know the identity of the anonymous classmate that he’s fallen for online. Resolving both issues proves hilarious, terrifying and life-changing.
Love, Simon is one of the most important films in a generation. Aiming to please both everyday movie-goers and be sensitive to the issues that gay people face on a daily basis, it needs to tread a very careful line, and I’m pleased to say, it does so beautifully. From the exceptional performances of the entire cast, to the warming attempts at humour, it succeeds on almost every level.
Jurassic World’s Nick Robinson is outstanding as Simon. A 17-year-old who consistently struggles to accept who he truly is would be an incredibly difficult role for even the most seasoned actors to take on, but he really is wonderful to watch. As we journey across his troubled story, the audience feels fully immersed in his actions, even those that are, shall we say, questionable.
The supporting cast too, is excellent. Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel are a great, if slightly underused presence, as Simon’s parents and along with his sister Nora (played by Talitha Bateman), they make an entirely believable family unit and it’s lovely to see them rallying around him when the inevitable ‘outing’ occurs. One touching scene in particular featuring Garner speaking to her son is sure to turn on the waterworks for many.
Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson
Director Greg Berlanti is a relative newcomer to the world of romantic comedy, but he leads with a confidence that makes him appear seasoned at this game. Touching scenes of emotion are nicely interspersed with sequences of genuinely funny comedy – the sign of a great rom-com.
Special mention must go to Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms. Albright, who manages to garner most of the laughs throughout. All of this culminates in a sweet finale that ties together everything that’s happened over the previous 110 minutes very well indeed.
If we’re to look at some of the flaws then it’s fair to say that the story outside of it featuring a gay lead is completely unoriginal. It’s been done before, but that’s kind of its charm. Flipping the classic rom-com story on its head by allowing audiences across the world to see that being gay really isn’t easy is a really nice thing to see.
In a nutshell, Love, Simon is a film with a massive heart anchored by a beautifully raw performance by Nick Robinson. It’ll make you laugh and it’ll make you cry, but this is a touching romantic comedy that will absolutely go down in the history books of film. Like Brokeback Mountain did for the older gay man, Love, Simon can be a shining light for young men who are struggling to accept who they truly are.
Is this a turning point for Hollywood? Well, let’s hope so.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/07/love-simon-review-one-of-the-most-important-films-in-a-generation/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
I am most familiar with the tale of the Phantom of the Opera from the musical of that name. It is likely different from the book by Gaston Leroux. I havent read the original novel that inspired the opera and RoseBlood itself in years. As a result, I am sure that I miss some nods to the original or nuances that people more familiar with the story will understand.
Our main character, Rune has a unique relationship with music. Certain works, usually arias written for women, speak to her and make their home in her soul. Upon hearing the soaring notes, she is immediately overtaken by the need to sing and expel the music. When she was younger and her father accompanied her on the violin, those moments were glorious but they did not last. Her father became ill and then died, leaving her with no accompaniment and the music began to cage her. No longer could she just release the notes inside her, but they took something with them and left her feeling ill. If the piece spoke to her she had no choice but let it overwhelm her vocal cords and release.
The Phantom lives in his classic dark dwelling beneath the school, which was once an opera house. He travels the underground river via a boat, has various neglected instruments strewn about and is friendly with a red swan. Just your normal phantom behavior. Pretty early on, we learn that who we first believe to be this iteration of the phantom is not the one from the book and are introduced to the Phantom himself. The Phantom is Thorns guardian and teacher, although he has been sickly lately and Thorn has been taking care of him.
There is an interesting addition in this version of auras and chakras. Rune, Thorn and the Phantom are able to see the music as it fills the air with colour. The Phantom even taught Thorn how to harness that auric energy from emotions, and the even more powerful music, to do things like manipulating feelings and thoughts. Together, Thorn and the Phantom plan to alienate Rune from her teachers and classmates until she discovers the lair surrenders to the darkness and they hope she gives up her music to them.
Runes first day at RoseBlood does not go exactly as she hoped, but her new friend and peer advisor, Sunny introduces her to Jackson Reynolds. My immediate feelings about the two were that they were playing this retelling's version of Meg and Raoul, whether that is, in fact, true you shall have to discover by reading the book. Her relationship with her Phantom parallels that of the original, as he helps her to calm the music inside her.
Although the author provides reasoning later on for their immediate connection and trust, it still feels like insta-love. To know someone for only a short while and frequently consider abandoning or betraying everything youve ever known and believed in for the past decade. That is intense and not something people could just easily give up on whether it is the right way or not.
While I did enjoy this book, I probably would not go out and purchase a copy for myself. In order to make this the next chapter of the Phantom of the Opera, rather than a re-telling the author added some different aspects to the story that were not in the original. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this change it was interesting but as I was reading I didnt feel or believe that it was as well thought out as it should have been. I think that the idea of the story was a lot more intriguing than the actual execution of it ended up being.
After the conclusion of the book, there is a note from the author that describes what inspired her to write this version of the story. It shows where she got each of her ideas and the amount of thought that went into them. As I stated before, I see the merit of each addition (and admire the research that went into them) but it just seemed to be a little too much added and it became unwieldy.
Our main character, Rune has a unique relationship with music. Certain works, usually arias written for women, speak to her and make their home in her soul. Upon hearing the soaring notes, she is immediately overtaken by the need to sing and expel the music. When she was younger and her father accompanied her on the violin, those moments were glorious but they did not last. Her father became ill and then died, leaving her with no accompaniment and the music began to cage her. No longer could she just release the notes inside her, but they took something with them and left her feeling ill. If the piece spoke to her she had no choice but let it overwhelm her vocal cords and release.
The Phantom lives in his classic dark dwelling beneath the school, which was once an opera house. He travels the underground river via a boat, has various neglected instruments strewn about and is friendly with a red swan. Just your normal phantom behavior. Pretty early on, we learn that who we first believe to be this iteration of the phantom is not the one from the book and are introduced to the Phantom himself. The Phantom is Thorns guardian and teacher, although he has been sickly lately and Thorn has been taking care of him.
There is an interesting addition in this version of auras and chakras. Rune, Thorn and the Phantom are able to see the music as it fills the air with colour. The Phantom even taught Thorn how to harness that auric energy from emotions, and the even more powerful music, to do things like manipulating feelings and thoughts. Together, Thorn and the Phantom plan to alienate Rune from her teachers and classmates until she discovers the lair surrenders to the darkness and they hope she gives up her music to them.
Runes first day at RoseBlood does not go exactly as she hoped, but her new friend and peer advisor, Sunny introduces her to Jackson Reynolds. My immediate feelings about the two were that they were playing this retelling's version of Meg and Raoul, whether that is, in fact, true you shall have to discover by reading the book. Her relationship with her Phantom parallels that of the original, as he helps her to calm the music inside her.
Although the author provides reasoning later on for their immediate connection and trust, it still feels like insta-love. To know someone for only a short while and frequently consider abandoning or betraying everything youve ever known and believed in for the past decade. That is intense and not something people could just easily give up on whether it is the right way or not.
While I did enjoy this book, I probably would not go out and purchase a copy for myself. In order to make this the next chapter of the Phantom of the Opera, rather than a re-telling the author added some different aspects to the story that were not in the original. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this change it was interesting but as I was reading I didnt feel or believe that it was as well thought out as it should have been. I think that the idea of the story was a lot more intriguing than the actual execution of it ended up being.
After the conclusion of the book, there is a note from the author that describes what inspired her to write this version of the story. It shows where she got each of her ideas and the amount of thought that went into them. As I stated before, I see the merit of each addition (and admire the research that went into them) but it just seemed to be a little too much added and it became unwieldy.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Mindhealer (The Watchers, #5) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
<p>I'm actually reviewing all five of the Watcher books. They're quite short—novella length, really—and very much interrelated (especially the first four). I read all of them in about a day and a half, despite doing other things. I do advise taking them all in row, which is the equivalent of reading one "normal" novel.</p>
<p>
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268186.Dark_Watcher">Dark Watcher</a> opens in Santiago City (aka Saint City), with a quartet of witches. Mindhealer is the only book that takes place outside of Santiago City, which seems to be the primary setting for all of Saintcrow's novels (from what I've read in the descriptions). </p>
<p>
Theodora, earth witch and healer, runs the Cauldron, an occult book and supply store. Mariamne Niege (water witch, prognosticator) and Elise Nicholson (fire witch) work for her in addition to being, respectively, a graduate student and a musician. Suzanne (air witch, I don't believe we ever learn her last name) is Elise's foster mother and their teacher, something of a high priestess to the little group.</p>
<p>The four women know that they're psychic and that "magick" is real. They don't know that they are "Lightbringers," that there are groups and creatures in the world that hunt them, or that a group called Circle Lightfall trains and sends out "Watchers" to protect (and recruit) Lightbringers in order to counterbalance the darkness in the world.
</p>
<p>Watchers are formerly wicked men with some psychic talents who have been given a chance to redeem themselves. They are bonded with a tanak, a dark symbiote that gives them supernatural speed, strength, healing power, and longevity. The tanak also makes it possible for them to sense darkness, but it causes the Watchers to experience pain whenever they're around Lightbringers.
</p>
<p>The catch is that for every Watcher, there is one Witch whose presence and touch will be intensely pleasurable instead of torturous. The hope of finding that one witch is what keeps each Watcher going, fighting and surviving horrific wounds for one chance at happiness.
</p>
<p>The use of the tired soulmate meme (though that specific word is never used) is annoying, and it detracts from what is otherwise a fairly original concept. The fact that there are only male Watchers, though there are a few (mostly queer) male lightbringers, is a bigger disappointment. The reasoning given is that women do not have the viciousness to kill without hesitation. That's simplistic, at best. Male lightbringers are also painted as weaker than females, and that, in combination with the pedestal upon which Watchers place Lightbringers, unbalances the novels.
</p>
<p>Theodora is the main subject of the first book. Mariamne is the focus of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268188.Storm_Watcher">Storm Watcher</a>. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268189.Fire_Watcher">Fire Watcher</a>, of course, is primarily about Elise. We meet a new air witch, Anya Harris, in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268190.Cloud_Watcher">Cloud Watcher</a>. And finally, Mindhealer is about Caro Robbins, whose brother plays a small part in Fire Watcher.
</p>
<p>The books should certainly be classified as romances first, although they do have very strong paranormal themes. Every book follows the classic romance novel formula. The fact that I kept reading despite my dislike of romances is a testament to Saintcrow's talent.
</p>
<p>I suspect that the author either is pagan, or is very familiar with pagan practices. The rituals in each novel are nicely done, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear people using some of the invocations used in Circle.</p>
<p>I do have to propose the Watcher drinking game. Take a shot every time there's any mention of treating a Watcher "dreadfully," and every time a Watcher moans about how unworthy he is to be in the presence of a Lightbringer. You'll be past noticing any formulae in no time!</p>
<p>
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268186.Dark_Watcher">Dark Watcher</a> opens in Santiago City (aka Saint City), with a quartet of witches. Mindhealer is the only book that takes place outside of Santiago City, which seems to be the primary setting for all of Saintcrow's novels (from what I've read in the descriptions). </p>
<p>
Theodora, earth witch and healer, runs the Cauldron, an occult book and supply store. Mariamne Niege (water witch, prognosticator) and Elise Nicholson (fire witch) work for her in addition to being, respectively, a graduate student and a musician. Suzanne (air witch, I don't believe we ever learn her last name) is Elise's foster mother and their teacher, something of a high priestess to the little group.</p>
<p>The four women know that they're psychic and that "magick" is real. They don't know that they are "Lightbringers," that there are groups and creatures in the world that hunt them, or that a group called Circle Lightfall trains and sends out "Watchers" to protect (and recruit) Lightbringers in order to counterbalance the darkness in the world.
</p>
<p>Watchers are formerly wicked men with some psychic talents who have been given a chance to redeem themselves. They are bonded with a tanak, a dark symbiote that gives them supernatural speed, strength, healing power, and longevity. The tanak also makes it possible for them to sense darkness, but it causes the Watchers to experience pain whenever they're around Lightbringers.
</p>
<p>The catch is that for every Watcher, there is one Witch whose presence and touch will be intensely pleasurable instead of torturous. The hope of finding that one witch is what keeps each Watcher going, fighting and surviving horrific wounds for one chance at happiness.
</p>
<p>The use of the tired soulmate meme (though that specific word is never used) is annoying, and it detracts from what is otherwise a fairly original concept. The fact that there are only male Watchers, though there are a few (mostly queer) male lightbringers, is a bigger disappointment. The reasoning given is that women do not have the viciousness to kill without hesitation. That's simplistic, at best. Male lightbringers are also painted as weaker than females, and that, in combination with the pedestal upon which Watchers place Lightbringers, unbalances the novels.
</p>
<p>Theodora is the main subject of the first book. Mariamne is the focus of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268188.Storm_Watcher">Storm Watcher</a>. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268189.Fire_Watcher">Fire Watcher</a>, of course, is primarily about Elise. We meet a new air witch, Anya Harris, in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/268190.Cloud_Watcher">Cloud Watcher</a>. And finally, Mindhealer is about Caro Robbins, whose brother plays a small part in Fire Watcher.
</p>
<p>The books should certainly be classified as romances first, although they do have very strong paranormal themes. Every book follows the classic romance novel formula. The fact that I kept reading despite my dislike of romances is a testament to Saintcrow's talent.
</p>
<p>I suspect that the author either is pagan, or is very familiar with pagan practices. The rituals in each novel are nicely done, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear people using some of the invocations used in Circle.</p>
<p>I do have to propose the Watcher drinking game. Take a shot every time there's any mention of treating a Watcher "dreadfully," and every time a Watcher moans about how unworthy he is to be in the presence of a Lightbringer. You'll be past noticing any formulae in no time!</p>
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Beautiful Mind (2001) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Beautiful Mind starts as we see John Nash (Crowe) start his time at Princeton University where we meet fellow students Sol (Goldberg), Hansen (Lucas), Bender (Rapp), Ainsley (Gray-Stanford) and his roommate Charles (Bettany). Struggling to find his place in the University it takes an everyday occurrence for John to final start rolling on his theory.
After becoming the brightest student John moves onto becoming a teacher while secretly working for the government on code breaking reporting to Parcher (Harris). While teaching he meets the beautiful Alicia Nash (Connelly) and the two strike it off before starting their lives together.
When it becomes apparent John is struggling to manage both live the people that care about him with Charles returning to his life, Parcher pushing him too much and his wife wondering what he is up to, but this beautiful mind is about to be tested when Dr Rosen (Plummer) a psychologist enters his life.
A Beautiful Mind is a wonderfully drama showing us the story of one of the greatest minds of our generation. We see how difficult the life was for John before learning of his mind being damaged due to his schizophrenia. We follow from his time in school until his Noble Peace Prize. We see John deal and learn with his condition to still go on achieve greatness in his life. This is such a brilliant story that shows how success you can achieve your potential regardless.
Actor Review
Russell Crowe: John Nash is the brilliant mathematician that believes he has been working for the government cracking codes, but when we and he learns the truth we discover this beautiful mind is damaged in other ways. We see John’s life from early Princeton till his final acceptance in the scientific world. Russell gives the best performance of his career her where he shines in the drama.john
Ed Harris: Parcher is the man John believes works for the government as he lives the life of mystery and code breaking John believes he is part of. Ed is great in this supporting role.parcher
Jennifer Connelly: Alicia Nash starts off as a student of John’s before being the only person that sees there is something wrong with his mind, she supports him through every decision in their lives. Jennifer is brilliant in this role of the patience wife.
Paul Bettany: Charles is the roommate John has at Princeton that helps him break out of the problems he has been suffering through but we learn the truth about Charles once we learn John’s mental state. Paul put himself on the map with this great supporting role.charles
Support Cast: A Beautiful Mind has a brilliant supporting cast that all give performances worthy of this subject matter.
Director Review: Ron Howard – Ron shows that he can handle the serious films that are important to see the greatest people in human history.
Biographical: A Beautiful Mind shows the struggles John Nash had with his own sanity to achieve unlocking all of the potential inside his mind.
History: A Beautiful Mind is one film that shows the mind of someone so troubled achieving so much.
Settings: A Beautiful Mind uses the real life location re-created for the story to be unfolded in.
Suggestion: A Beautiful Mind is one for everyone to watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: The Pen scene.
Worst Part: Slightly too much time on the imagined side of John’s life.
Favourite Quote: Dr Rosen ‘Imagine if you suddenly learned that the people, the places, the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?’
Believability: Based on the John Nash and his amazing story.
Chances of Tears: Maybe a few nearer the end.
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 4 Oscars including Best Picture, Director and Supporting Actress with another 4 Nomination including Best Actor.
Budget: $60 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 15 Minutes
Tagline: The Only Thing Greater Than the Power of the Mind is the Courage of the Heart
Trivia: John Nash is shown smoking in the film. In reality, he was a militant anti-smoker.
Overall: Brilliant Biographical film that is a must watch for all.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/27/paul-bettany-weekend-a-beautiful-mind-2001/
After becoming the brightest student John moves onto becoming a teacher while secretly working for the government on code breaking reporting to Parcher (Harris). While teaching he meets the beautiful Alicia Nash (Connelly) and the two strike it off before starting their lives together.
When it becomes apparent John is struggling to manage both live the people that care about him with Charles returning to his life, Parcher pushing him too much and his wife wondering what he is up to, but this beautiful mind is about to be tested when Dr Rosen (Plummer) a psychologist enters his life.
A Beautiful Mind is a wonderfully drama showing us the story of one of the greatest minds of our generation. We see how difficult the life was for John before learning of his mind being damaged due to his schizophrenia. We follow from his time in school until his Noble Peace Prize. We see John deal and learn with his condition to still go on achieve greatness in his life. This is such a brilliant story that shows how success you can achieve your potential regardless.
Actor Review
Russell Crowe: John Nash is the brilliant mathematician that believes he has been working for the government cracking codes, but when we and he learns the truth we discover this beautiful mind is damaged in other ways. We see John’s life from early Princeton till his final acceptance in the scientific world. Russell gives the best performance of his career her where he shines in the drama.john
Ed Harris: Parcher is the man John believes works for the government as he lives the life of mystery and code breaking John believes he is part of. Ed is great in this supporting role.parcher
Jennifer Connelly: Alicia Nash starts off as a student of John’s before being the only person that sees there is something wrong with his mind, she supports him through every decision in their lives. Jennifer is brilliant in this role of the patience wife.
Paul Bettany: Charles is the roommate John has at Princeton that helps him break out of the problems he has been suffering through but we learn the truth about Charles once we learn John’s mental state. Paul put himself on the map with this great supporting role.charles
Support Cast: A Beautiful Mind has a brilliant supporting cast that all give performances worthy of this subject matter.
Director Review: Ron Howard – Ron shows that he can handle the serious films that are important to see the greatest people in human history.
Biographical: A Beautiful Mind shows the struggles John Nash had with his own sanity to achieve unlocking all of the potential inside his mind.
History: A Beautiful Mind is one film that shows the mind of someone so troubled achieving so much.
Settings: A Beautiful Mind uses the real life location re-created for the story to be unfolded in.
Suggestion: A Beautiful Mind is one for everyone to watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: The Pen scene.
Worst Part: Slightly too much time on the imagined side of John’s life.
Favourite Quote: Dr Rosen ‘Imagine if you suddenly learned that the people, the places, the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?’
Believability: Based on the John Nash and his amazing story.
Chances of Tears: Maybe a few nearer the end.
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 4 Oscars including Best Picture, Director and Supporting Actress with another 4 Nomination including Best Actor.
Budget: $60 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 15 Minutes
Tagline: The Only Thing Greater Than the Power of the Mind is the Courage of the Heart
Trivia: John Nash is shown smoking in the film. In reality, he was a militant anti-smoker.
Overall: Brilliant Biographical film that is a must watch for all.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/27/paul-bettany-weekend-a-beautiful-mind-2001/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.