Search
Search results
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Fractured in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/fractured-by-catherine-mckenzie
AVAILABLE NOW IN THE UK!
<b><i>They say that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazonian rainforest, it can change the weather half a world away. Chaos theory...
All I know is today is that you can think that what you’ve done is only the flap of a butterfly wing, when it’s really a thunderclap.
And both can result in a hurricane.</b></i>
Julie’s life has gotten hard, she’s become a famous author and managed to bag herself a crazed stalker, so she decides to move her family across the country in hope of a new, stalkerless, beginning. And when she meet neighbour John, they hit it off immediately, the future seems brighter. But before long, things start to go wrong again. Who knew moving into a beautiful picturesque new neighbourhood could be so deadly?
I was really worried about reading this because Netgalley classed it as women's fiction and I have serious beef with that genre… but also, I was expecting a suspense thriller, not some family-lovey-dovey bullshit, but after seeing the rave reviews on Goodreads I had a little more hope that this would be bearable for me. And boy was it bearable, more than that in fact, it was exciting and thrilling to read!
As Stephen King says <i><b>“Good books don't give up all their secrets at once.”</i></b> and this book certainly didn’t! I thought it was excellent at keeping you on your toes, feeding you chunks of mystery and suspense a little at a time.
<b>Minor spoilers in this paragraph.</b> I really liked the main characters in this book… separately. Julie was a good mum and loving wife who was dealing with all her issues in a non-annoying way and John was a good dad, and, for the most part, a good husband. But put the two of them together and they got annoying. How could a grown man and woman not realise the friendship they had managed to create out of one conversation the day Julie moved in was inappropriate for so long? Julie especially, as her relationship with Daniel seemed close to perfect! The childishness of their situation had me really irritated and uncomfortable throughout the novel. I never used to have a problem with these kind of relationships in books until me and Matt had been together for a while, not that I <i>ever</i> condoned cheating on a partner before I got into a relationship, just the thought of being cheated on by your other half sets off all kinds of emotions and feelings inside of me that I can’t even begin to describe. <spoiler>So when they kissed each other outside Julie’s house, my stomach dropped, I felt instantly panicky and sick and contemplated putting the novel down as unfinished. I hate, <b>hate</b> reading about affairs.</spoiler>
My favourite character was Daniel though, what a lovely, gentle and understanding man… if not a little naive. Though I didn’t like Hanna, but she had every right to be angry and suspicious with John.
It’s pretty clear from a few chapters in who our criminal is, but McKenzie does well to keep what specifically the “accident” is and who our victim is secret until just the right moment. When we found out what happened and who it happened to I was shocked! It’s been a long time since a book has surprised me in the same way. What a crazy end to this rollercoaster ride of a book!
Overall, this is a fantastic suspense novel, with just the right amount of “women’s fiction” merged with thriller. I seriously recommend this for all thriller/suspense readers out there, I’m sure this won’t disappoint!
<i>(I don’t mean to create any kind of drama with this comment but this whole novel is <i>so American!</i> Wanting to sue someone over small things? Having “block parties” and neighbourhood newsletters and stuff with an immature queen bee in charge of it all? This shit would never go down in the UK.)</i>
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Lake Union Publishing for the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.
AVAILABLE NOW IN THE UK!
<b><i>They say that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazonian rainforest, it can change the weather half a world away. Chaos theory...
All I know is today is that you can think that what you’ve done is only the flap of a butterfly wing, when it’s really a thunderclap.
And both can result in a hurricane.</b></i>
Julie’s life has gotten hard, she’s become a famous author and managed to bag herself a crazed stalker, so she decides to move her family across the country in hope of a new, stalkerless, beginning. And when she meet neighbour John, they hit it off immediately, the future seems brighter. But before long, things start to go wrong again. Who knew moving into a beautiful picturesque new neighbourhood could be so deadly?
I was really worried about reading this because Netgalley classed it as women's fiction and I have serious beef with that genre… but also, I was expecting a suspense thriller, not some family-lovey-dovey bullshit, but after seeing the rave reviews on Goodreads I had a little more hope that this would be bearable for me. And boy was it bearable, more than that in fact, it was exciting and thrilling to read!
As Stephen King says <i><b>“Good books don't give up all their secrets at once.”</i></b> and this book certainly didn’t! I thought it was excellent at keeping you on your toes, feeding you chunks of mystery and suspense a little at a time.
<b>Minor spoilers in this paragraph.</b> I really liked the main characters in this book… separately. Julie was a good mum and loving wife who was dealing with all her issues in a non-annoying way and John was a good dad, and, for the most part, a good husband. But put the two of them together and they got annoying. How could a grown man and woman not realise the friendship they had managed to create out of one conversation the day Julie moved in was inappropriate for so long? Julie especially, as her relationship with Daniel seemed close to perfect! The childishness of their situation had me really irritated and uncomfortable throughout the novel. I never used to have a problem with these kind of relationships in books until me and Matt had been together for a while, not that I <i>ever</i> condoned cheating on a partner before I got into a relationship, just the thought of being cheated on by your other half sets off all kinds of emotions and feelings inside of me that I can’t even begin to describe. <spoiler>So when they kissed each other outside Julie’s house, my stomach dropped, I felt instantly panicky and sick and contemplated putting the novel down as unfinished. I hate, <b>hate</b> reading about affairs.</spoiler>
My favourite character was Daniel though, what a lovely, gentle and understanding man… if not a little naive. Though I didn’t like Hanna, but she had every right to be angry and suspicious with John.
It’s pretty clear from a few chapters in who our criminal is, but McKenzie does well to keep what specifically the “accident” is and who our victim is secret until just the right moment. When we found out what happened and who it happened to I was shocked! It’s been a long time since a book has surprised me in the same way. What a crazy end to this rollercoaster ride of a book!
Overall, this is a fantastic suspense novel, with just the right amount of “women’s fiction” merged with thriller. I seriously recommend this for all thriller/suspense readers out there, I’m sure this won’t disappoint!
<i>(I don’t mean to create any kind of drama with this comment but this whole novel is <i>so American!</i> Wanting to sue someone over small things? Having “block parties” and neighbourhood newsletters and stuff with an immature queen bee in charge of it all? This shit would never go down in the UK.)</i>
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Lake Union Publishing for the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated God: A Human History in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
</i>
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, <i>God: A Human History.</i> To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
<i>God: A Human History </i>is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, <i>God: A Human History </i>leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
</i>
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, <i>God: A Human History.</i> To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
<i>God: A Human History </i>is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, <i>God: A Human History </i>leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
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/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Oct 27, 2019
Firstly I'd like to address the accuracy of this film. As soon as I got out of the screening I looked up the story and it took the shine off a little. James Glaisher was indeed involved in these experiments but his companion was Henry Coxwell and not the fictional Amelia Wren. Wren is at least based on female aeronauts of the time, Sophie Blanchard and Margaret Graham, which is a slight comfort. I can of course understand why they did it, the film has a definite air of romance about it and the inclusion of a larger than life character and her backstory does give the film a boost that it might not have had on the original story.
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated My Week with Marilyn (2011) in Movies
Dec 30, 2019
Strong performance by Williams in a terrific film
According to my Letterboxd profile, I view (on average) 4.5 films/week. Only 1 or 2 of them in a week are at the theater. The rest, I stream (or pop in the DVD). I spare you (for the most part) my review of mediocre or just plain bad films that I see (case in point the recent A CHRISTMAS CAROL on FX starring Guy Pearce - only watch it if you've ever wanted to see Marley drop the F-bomb multiple times). But...every once in a while I catch up with a gem that compels me to write a review to inform you folks of a wonderful film you might have missed (or have forgotten about).
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What Did Jesus Drive?: Crisis PR in Cars, Computers and Christianity
Book
What Did Jesus Drive, Is mostly about crises in the car industry, but then it's so much bigger! It's...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Strong Ensemble Work
The good thing about my yearly exercise to check out all of the Oscar Nominated films in the "Major" Categories is that it forces me to watch films that are "one my list" but I just haven't gotten to them. THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is one of those types of films - an Aaron Sorkin Written and Directed project with a stellar cast about an important moment in United States History.
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
PES CLUB MANAGER
Games and Entertainment
App
The "PES" soccer simulation game has been played by more than 25 million users around the globe....
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.