Search
Search results
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Surrender the Sky in Books
Dec 20, 2017
Contains spoilers, click to show
** spoiler alert ** *contains spoilers*
This was a very decent story. I give it three stars because I'm a tough critic, and I have to put it up against things like the "A Song of Ice and Fire" books and "American Gods" which are what I consider five star books, but honestly, I think most average readers of these types of books would probably give it a four.
The book centers around Gabby, a member of the Sary, which are basically guardian angels who come down to earth in the guise of humans to "guard" potential suicide victims and try everything to keep them from killing themselves and ending up in the vast nothingness that awaits suicides after death. This is the sole purpose of the Sary's existence. They do not fall in love; they do not have families; they do not do anything outside of their sacred duty.
Gabby's assignment is a troubled high school student, and within five pages of the book's opening, she has obviously very much failed in her assignment. The worst part, however, isn't that the student killed himself. Instead, it is that, in killing himself, the student shot Gabby, and in her pain and shock at being shot, she accidentally changes her form and exposes all six-feet of the winged goodness that is her Sary form.
This, of course, causes massive problems because secrecy is totally imperative for the Sary. Enter Jassen, next in line for the Sary crown -- although there is no ACTUAL crown, mind you. Beautiful, powerful, dutiful Jassen, who is dedicated to the Sary's solitary way of life. So, of course, he becomes the love interest. :-p Seriously though, I joke about it -- and it IS a bit predictable -- but still, it was a really good story all in all.
And it isn't just romance. Jassen has a twin brother who is a bit psychotic and isn't happy with the way Jassen and the Teacher (the leader of the Sary) are running things. He believes the Sary should live out in the open, sort of a Gods-among-men situation, and because they are identical twins, he causes all sorts of trouble, not just for the Sary, but for Gabby in particular.
I actually really enjoyed the story, but there were a few places in which the action was a little weak, and those spots brought my overall opinion of the story down a bit. For instance, Gabby's best friend, Bea -- the only true friend she's ever really had -- falls in love with a Sary member of the "clean-up crew" sent to fix Gabby's mess. This particular Sary, Nathan, eventually turns on Gabby, Jassen, and the rest of the Sary and allies himself with Jassen's twin, Leon. He does a couple of terrible things, including kidnapping Gabby, and is caught and locked up in a bedroom for a day. Then, he helps heal Gabby, and he is all out about, lying in Bea's lap, letting her stroke his hair.
I'm sorry, but I have a best friend, too, and no matter how much she loved her significant other, if he kidnapped me and led to me suffering a serious injury -- even if he helped patch me back together afterwards -- she would never forgive him, much less in a little over a day. That was completely ridiculous and unbelievable to me, and it really bothered me quite a bit. It bothered me so much, in fact, that it truly did affect my overall opinion of the book.
However, that being said, again I will say that I did enjoy the book, and it is a very solid three star story.
This was a very decent story. I give it three stars because I'm a tough critic, and I have to put it up against things like the "A Song of Ice and Fire" books and "American Gods" which are what I consider five star books, but honestly, I think most average readers of these types of books would probably give it a four.
The book centers around Gabby, a member of the Sary, which are basically guardian angels who come down to earth in the guise of humans to "guard" potential suicide victims and try everything to keep them from killing themselves and ending up in the vast nothingness that awaits suicides after death. This is the sole purpose of the Sary's existence. They do not fall in love; they do not have families; they do not do anything outside of their sacred duty.
Gabby's assignment is a troubled high school student, and within five pages of the book's opening, she has obviously very much failed in her assignment. The worst part, however, isn't that the student killed himself. Instead, it is that, in killing himself, the student shot Gabby, and in her pain and shock at being shot, she accidentally changes her form and exposes all six-feet of the winged goodness that is her Sary form.
This, of course, causes massive problems because secrecy is totally imperative for the Sary. Enter Jassen, next in line for the Sary crown -- although there is no ACTUAL crown, mind you. Beautiful, powerful, dutiful Jassen, who is dedicated to the Sary's solitary way of life. So, of course, he becomes the love interest. :-p Seriously though, I joke about it -- and it IS a bit predictable -- but still, it was a really good story all in all.
And it isn't just romance. Jassen has a twin brother who is a bit psychotic and isn't happy with the way Jassen and the Teacher (the leader of the Sary) are running things. He believes the Sary should live out in the open, sort of a Gods-among-men situation, and because they are identical twins, he causes all sorts of trouble, not just for the Sary, but for Gabby in particular.
I actually really enjoyed the story, but there were a few places in which the action was a little weak, and those spots brought my overall opinion of the story down a bit. For instance, Gabby's best friend, Bea -- the only true friend she's ever really had -- falls in love with a Sary member of the "clean-up crew" sent to fix Gabby's mess. This particular Sary, Nathan, eventually turns on Gabby, Jassen, and the rest of the Sary and allies himself with Jassen's twin, Leon. He does a couple of terrible things, including kidnapping Gabby, and is caught and locked up in a bedroom for a day. Then, he helps heal Gabby, and he is all out about, lying in Bea's lap, letting her stroke his hair.
I'm sorry, but I have a best friend, too, and no matter how much she loved her significant other, if he kidnapped me and led to me suffering a serious injury -- even if he helped patch me back together afterwards -- she would never forgive him, much less in a little over a day. That was completely ridiculous and unbelievable to me, and it really bothered me quite a bit. It bothered me so much, in fact, that it truly did affect my overall opinion of the book.
However, that being said, again I will say that I did enjoy the book, and it is a very solid three star story.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A stunning portrait of friendship and comedy
To this day, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are still regarded as one of the greatest comedy duos. Their acts used slapstick comedy, cartoon violence and song to delight audiences. From 1927 all the way up to 1955, they performed these acts together both on screen and on stage.
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bruno (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Life is good for Austrian fashonista Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen). As the star of the top Austrian fashion show, he is a fixture at all of the social events and is the flamboyant highpoint of any event he graces.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Food Diary and Calorie Tracker by MyNetDiary HD
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
MyNetDiary is the easiest to use and most comprehensive food diary and calorie counter app on the...
Pacer: Pedometer & Walking App
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
Track your steps 24/7 using just your phone! Join a community of people just like you and get...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Aug 29, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the time of writing this, The New Mutants has been out in the UK for about 3 days, on preview, and I have already seen a review headed 'The worst X-Men movie yet', I didn't read the review so maybe the reviewer makes some insightful points but, with a lead like that i doubt it.
You see The New Mutants isn't an X-men film, it's set in the (fox? maybe) X-men universe but it's not superheros'/mutants vs other mutants/robots/government, even thought there is a bit of mutants vs baddies.
It is a 'genesis' story, unlike the X-men films, we are seeing the creation of a new team. Like the X-Men films it starts with a new mutant meeting other Mutants.
The 'new mutant' to the New Mutants is Danielle Moonstar, a native American who's reserve and family are destroyed by a tornado leaving her as the only survivor. Danielle wakes up in a hospital to be told of her lose and that the only reason she survived was because she was mutant and she is now in a hospital where she can learn how to use her powers and then she is introduced to the patients/mutants who are at the hospital.
The mutant roster is the New Mutants of the 80's & 90's comics (minus one or two) and the film has a very 80's feel to it.
The New Mutants has a slow start and almost has a 'Breakfast club with powers' feel to it, you have a group of teens who have been placed together and are unable to leave. They sit around and talk about their past and fight and make friends and kiss and fight their worst nightmares and, suddenly your no longer watching 'The Breakfast Club with powers' but 'Nightmare on Elm street 3: the dream warriors, with powers' (Yes I know the kids in Elm Street 3 get powers for a bit but this is different). The Mutants have to team up to fight all sorts of nasties from their pasts, become one cohesive team and find out who is creating the nightmares.
The New Mutants pulls off the 80's teen movie style well but some of the CGI seems a bit off.
Even with the 80's feel we don't actually know when the film is set, the T.V's in the hospital are often showing 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (the series) so that would imply that it's at least late 90's and the X-Men are mentioned although they are referred to as heroes which doesn't seem to fit elsewhere in the fox universe.
And this, of course is the biggest problem with the film (and it's not the
films fault), New Mutants was started as a Fox film, as part of their X-Men universe but then it got delayed and then fox got brought out by Disney and the film got delayed again (and many thought it would never to see light day.) Then it got released but, the Disney Marvel cinematic Universe doesn't (yet) have mutants (because they were owned by fox ) so it doesn't fit in with any of the Disney films or, as it was finished by Disney it doesn't fit with any X-Men film and so is floating in the strange limbo shared with Legion and the Gifted.
As a stand alone film it is ok however, as Disney had time to re edit it, it makes you wonder why it has been left open, The New Mutants are formed and ready to see what else life can throw at them, is this how mutants are going to be introduce to the Disney-verse or are we just going to be left hanging.
You see The New Mutants isn't an X-men film, it's set in the (fox? maybe) X-men universe but it's not superheros'/mutants vs other mutants/robots/government, even thought there is a bit of mutants vs baddies.
It is a 'genesis' story, unlike the X-men films, we are seeing the creation of a new team. Like the X-Men films it starts with a new mutant meeting other Mutants.
The 'new mutant' to the New Mutants is Danielle Moonstar, a native American who's reserve and family are destroyed by a tornado leaving her as the only survivor. Danielle wakes up in a hospital to be told of her lose and that the only reason she survived was because she was mutant and she is now in a hospital where she can learn how to use her powers and then she is introduced to the patients/mutants who are at the hospital.
The mutant roster is the New Mutants of the 80's & 90's comics (minus one or two) and the film has a very 80's feel to it.
The New Mutants has a slow start and almost has a 'Breakfast club with powers' feel to it, you have a group of teens who have been placed together and are unable to leave. They sit around and talk about their past and fight and make friends and kiss and fight their worst nightmares and, suddenly your no longer watching 'The Breakfast Club with powers' but 'Nightmare on Elm street 3: the dream warriors, with powers' (Yes I know the kids in Elm Street 3 get powers for a bit but this is different). The Mutants have to team up to fight all sorts of nasties from their pasts, become one cohesive team and find out who is creating the nightmares.
The New Mutants pulls off the 80's teen movie style well but some of the CGI seems a bit off.
Even with the 80's feel we don't actually know when the film is set, the T.V's in the hospital are often showing 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (the series) so that would imply that it's at least late 90's and the X-Men are mentioned although they are referred to as heroes which doesn't seem to fit elsewhere in the fox universe.
And this, of course is the biggest problem with the film (and it's not the
films fault), New Mutants was started as a Fox film, as part of their X-Men universe but then it got delayed and then fox got brought out by Disney and the film got delayed again (and many thought it would never to see light day.) Then it got released but, the Disney Marvel cinematic Universe doesn't (yet) have mutants (because they were owned by fox ) so it doesn't fit in with any of the Disney films or, as it was finished by Disney it doesn't fit with any X-Men film and so is floating in the strange limbo shared with Legion and the Gifted.
As a stand alone film it is ok however, as Disney had time to re edit it, it makes you wonder why it has been left open, The New Mutants are formed and ready to see what else life can throw at them, is this how mutants are going to be introduce to the Disney-verse or are we just going to be left hanging.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jan 8, 2019
Hugh Jackman (1 more)
J.K. Simmons
Enjoyable, great performances from all
I don't really follow, or know very much about American politics. Trying to cope with whatever Brexit nonsense is happening here in the UK on a daily basis is more than enough for me, so aside from face palming at whatever rubbish Donald Trump is currently spewing on Twitter, I'm fairly oblivious to it all. Back in 1988, I would have more likely been playing Super Mario World, than taking interest in former Colorado senator Gary Hart, who became the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. So why then would I be interested in watching a movie about him and the scandal he became involved in so close to achieving his dream of presidency? Well, when the movie stars versatile man of the moment Hugh Jackman as Gary Hart, along with another two of my favourite actors (Vera Farmiga and J.K. Simmons), then I'm more than happy to give it a shot!
The movie opens with Hart currently riding high, with only three weeks to go until the nomination. He's a very charismatic man, intelligent, and clearly striking a chord with the voters. His path to the White House seems clear and certain. But, as the opening on-screen titles remind us, a lot can happen in three weeks...
Those three weeks, for the most part, run pretty smoothly, giving us a chance to get to know Hart and the vast number of supporting characters as the campaign progresses through its final stages. J.K. Simmons is campaign manager Bill Dixon, brilliant and often hilarious in every scene he's in. Vera Farmiga plays Harts wife Lee, slightly underused in the role of supportive wife placed in a difficult position. Elsewhere, there are plenty of strong supporting characters, both throughout the campaign team and within the news teams that are tasked with following Hart around the country. One of those reporters eventually gets wind of a potential story, although he initially doesn't believe the young nervous girl phoning his office one night, telling him about her friend who is due to go and meet with Hart at the weekend. A last minute change in Harts schedule for the weekend leads the reporter to suspect there may be some truth to the phone call and he follows up on the lead, staking out Harts townhouse in a bid to get some dirt on him.
When the dirt does start to come out, Hart attempts to brush it aside. We've already seen what a private man he is, baffled as to why anyone would want to see him posing for photos with his family in People magazine. He believes that his policies and the politician that he is are all that matters, and that the public aren't interested in his private life at all, so all of this will just blow over. His staff rally round to try and contain the story and work out what to do with the woman involved in the scandal, while Harts wife and daughter deal with the fallout back home. All the while, the reporters and TV are having a field day. Every part of the story is interesting, and the characters involved are all superb. What always helps a movie like this though is when it is based on true events and what helps it even more is the fantastic cast, who all do a brilliant job at making this a very enjoyable movie.
The movie opens with Hart currently riding high, with only three weeks to go until the nomination. He's a very charismatic man, intelligent, and clearly striking a chord with the voters. His path to the White House seems clear and certain. But, as the opening on-screen titles remind us, a lot can happen in three weeks...
Those three weeks, for the most part, run pretty smoothly, giving us a chance to get to know Hart and the vast number of supporting characters as the campaign progresses through its final stages. J.K. Simmons is campaign manager Bill Dixon, brilliant and often hilarious in every scene he's in. Vera Farmiga plays Harts wife Lee, slightly underused in the role of supportive wife placed in a difficult position. Elsewhere, there are plenty of strong supporting characters, both throughout the campaign team and within the news teams that are tasked with following Hart around the country. One of those reporters eventually gets wind of a potential story, although he initially doesn't believe the young nervous girl phoning his office one night, telling him about her friend who is due to go and meet with Hart at the weekend. A last minute change in Harts schedule for the weekend leads the reporter to suspect there may be some truth to the phone call and he follows up on the lead, staking out Harts townhouse in a bid to get some dirt on him.
When the dirt does start to come out, Hart attempts to brush it aside. We've already seen what a private man he is, baffled as to why anyone would want to see him posing for photos with his family in People magazine. He believes that his policies and the politician that he is are all that matters, and that the public aren't interested in his private life at all, so all of this will just blow over. His staff rally round to try and contain the story and work out what to do with the woman involved in the scandal, while Harts wife and daughter deal with the fallout back home. All the while, the reporters and TV are having a field day. Every part of the story is interesting, and the characters involved are all superb. What always helps a movie like this though is when it is based on true events and what helps it even more is the fantastic cast, who all do a brilliant job at making this a very enjoyable movie.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Crisis (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Worth it just for Oldman
Crisis is a 2021 film from write, director and producer Nicholas Jarecki, who previously brought us 2012's Arbitrage starring Richard Gere. Crisis is a story about drugs, namely opioids, and follows three separate yet related narratives about opioids and their impact on US society. There's an undercover DEA agent posing as a drug trafficker arranging a Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the US (Armie Hammer), a recovering addict architect determined to track down those responsible for her son's involvement in narcotics (Evangeline Lilly), and a university professor (Gary Oldman) who's research laboratory uncovers dangerous revelations about a new drug that they've been paid to research by a very influential drug company and their executives (Luke Evans).
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
