Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peaks and Valleys (2020) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Acting of the two leads (2 more)
Cinematography of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness
Script and direction both good
Two strangers forced to over-winter in Alaskan wilderness
In “Peaks and Valleys”, Jack (Kevin T. Bennett) is living as a recluse in a remote cabin in Alaska. His solitude is rudely interrupted by a plane which drops a naked, trussed-up and drugged-up girl into his lake. Traumatised by her experiences, the girl (Bailey, played by Kitty Mahoney) is unwilling to trust the man. But trust him she must, since they are in the Alaskan wilderness and Jack tells her that the supply plane might not come for a couple of months.
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Would I Lie to the Duke (Union of the Rakes, #2) in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a
<a href="https://ko-fi.com/diaryofdifference">Ko-fi</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-35.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Thank you to Mills & Boon, for sending me a copy of Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh, and for the opportunity to participate on this blog tour.
Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh is the second book in the Union of the Rakes series. It can be easily read as a standalone though.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
This is the story of Jessica McGale. Her family business is in need of investors, after it collapses due to a fire. Jessica is determined to acquire investors for her business at any cost. When she realises that London’s elite will never give a chance to a humble farm girl like herself, she does the unthinkable. She poses as “Lady Whitfield” and joins the elite on the table. She especially tries to get close to the Duke of Rotherby, as his influence and support could save her company. But one thing Jess never expected to happen, is to grow feelings for him.
Noel is the carefree and notorious duke, but only his close friends truly know him. When he meets Lady Whitfield at the business bazaar, his world shifts. She makes him want to obey every command she tells, which is something he never imagined doing. He struggles to trust people, but trusting Jess is so easy.
But what happens when the business bazaar is over, and so is the fake portrayal of Lady Whitfield? How do you cope when someone has lied to you, but you want them in your life forever? Read this amazing book to find out!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I was so hooked about this book, and I finished it in two days. While the plot is a bit predictable and it has a Cinderella vibe to it, I still enjoyed it a lot.
I could completely understand where Jess was coming from, and in order to save her business, I don’t think there were any other options, given how much rejection she faced in the first chapters. But as soon as she started developing feelings, she should’ve been honest with Noel. The person in me felt uncomfortable for her every single time she would deliberately put herself in an awkward situation and not tell the truth when she had a chance to. And the business trip to the farm? Oh, that got me biting my nails again. I also understand that continuing with the deception was a crucial part of the plot, to produce the drama that it did, but I am just not a fan of dishonesty.
<b><i>Noel was an amazing character, even though, at times, he seemed like the typical rich boy.</i></b>
I loved the way his relationship with Jess progressed during the couple of days, and how he started opening up. Honestly, I didn’t believe it at first, given that it was based on a lie. I thought that given the fact how much trust issues he had, he could never get past her betrayal. And for me, his way of coping and resolving the issue didn’t fit with his character. I have the feeling that people who are lucky enough to have a high income and live in the elite societies are much more wary of “gold diggers”, and everything Jess does (even though for a good reason), seems to be for her business. So I wouldn’t have blamed him if he reacted in a way more different way and just told her to “bugger off”.
Overall, I enjoyed Would I Lie to the Duke and it was a very pleasurable short read to get me away from reality. I don’t always dive into historical romance, and this was a surprising change that ended on a positive note. Honestly, I am glad that it sparks a debate in my mind and makes me think of “what I would have done” on either side of the relationship. I would have acted very differently. And maybe that’s the reason I’m not married to a duke (yet).
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a
<a href="https://ko-fi.com/diaryofdifference">Ko-fi</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-35.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Thank you to Mills & Boon, for sending me a copy of Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh, and for the opportunity to participate on this blog tour.
Would I Lie to the Duke by Eva Leigh is the second book in the Union of the Rakes series. It can be easily read as a standalone though.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
This is the story of Jessica McGale. Her family business is in need of investors, after it collapses due to a fire. Jessica is determined to acquire investors for her business at any cost. When she realises that London’s elite will never give a chance to a humble farm girl like herself, she does the unthinkable. She poses as “Lady Whitfield” and joins the elite on the table. She especially tries to get close to the Duke of Rotherby, as his influence and support could save her company. But one thing Jess never expected to happen, is to grow feelings for him.
Noel is the carefree and notorious duke, but only his close friends truly know him. When he meets Lady Whitfield at the business bazaar, his world shifts. She makes him want to obey every command she tells, which is something he never imagined doing. He struggles to trust people, but trusting Jess is so easy.
But what happens when the business bazaar is over, and so is the fake portrayal of Lady Whitfield? How do you cope when someone has lied to you, but you want them in your life forever? Read this amazing book to find out!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I was so hooked about this book, and I finished it in two days. While the plot is a bit predictable and it has a Cinderella vibe to it, I still enjoyed it a lot.
I could completely understand where Jess was coming from, and in order to save her business, I don’t think there were any other options, given how much rejection she faced in the first chapters. But as soon as she started developing feelings, she should’ve been honest with Noel. The person in me felt uncomfortable for her every single time she would deliberately put herself in an awkward situation and not tell the truth when she had a chance to. And the business trip to the farm? Oh, that got me biting my nails again. I also understand that continuing with the deception was a crucial part of the plot, to produce the drama that it did, but I am just not a fan of dishonesty.
<b><i>Noel was an amazing character, even though, at times, he seemed like the typical rich boy.</i></b>
I loved the way his relationship with Jess progressed during the couple of days, and how he started opening up. Honestly, I didn’t believe it at first, given that it was based on a lie. I thought that given the fact how much trust issues he had, he could never get past her betrayal. And for me, his way of coping and resolving the issue didn’t fit with his character. I have the feeling that people who are lucky enough to have a high income and live in the elite societies are much more wary of “gold diggers”, and everything Jess does (even though for a good reason), seems to be for her business. So I wouldn’t have blamed him if he reacted in a way more different way and just told her to “bugger off”.
Overall, I enjoyed Would I Lie to the Duke and it was a very pleasurable short read to get me away from reality. I don’t always dive into historical romance, and this was a surprising change that ended on a positive note. Honestly, I am glad that it sparks a debate in my mind and makes me think of “what I would have done” on either side of the relationship. I would have acted very differently. And maybe that’s the reason I’m not married to a duke (yet).
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Hart Broken (Cale & Mickey #1) in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Contemporary
Goodreads Rating: 4.75/5 stars
My rating: 4/5 stars
Mickey Hart doesn’t do one-night stands. Until she wakes up in a luxury penthouse. With nothing but a t-shirt. And no idea who it belongs to.
Enter Cale Windermere. Driven. Ambitious. Successful. And so gorgeous he could’ve walked straight out of a romance novel…
Except he can’t walk. Not that it ever stops him from getting what he wants. And he wants Mickey. Even if she’s keeping secrets from him.
This book…
Where do I even begin? It has a strong start and it stays strong. Mickey is awkward and funny. She starts out at the perfect chick lit character.
“Cale Windermere,” he said, sticking out his hand.
“C-Cale?”
“Yeah. Like the leafy green, just take off the K and replace with a C.”
Oh. My. God.
“And you are?”
“Uh…”
Cale raised an eyebrow, chuckling lightly.
Say something, Mickey.
“I-l’m, uh…”
Something intelligent. And preferably English.
With the help of a mental slap, Mickey willed herself to take his hand and shake it, a bit too eagerly. “I-I’m Mickey.”
It’s difficult not to like her. I like even more that she doesn’t really care Cale’s in a wheelchair and she doesn’t do anything stupid and awkward like kneel down so they’re eye level or act as if he’s an invalid. Even though she does notice the wheelchair, she is easily distracted by how attractive he is.
Carefully taking a sip, Mickey did a once over of the man sitting in front of her. Cale’s shirt was just fitted enough to show off the remarkably solid build of his upper torso. She jotted down a mental list of all his attractive attributes thus far.
Thick, unruly chocolate locks. Gorgeous emerald eyes. Award-winning smile.
And he had a long list of greats.
Great back. Great shoulders. Great chest. Great arms.
Really great arms.
She ran her nails over the hot ceramic.
You’d never think that something was wrong with him.
She wondered if he had great abs too.
So I love Mickey. And the farther I got into the book, the more complex she became. I found myself really wanting to know why she was so commitment shy and found it difficult to sleep in the same bed as someone.
I love Cale a lot too, although not as much as Mickey. He’s charismatic, sexy, and very much in love with Mickey. He’s everything you’d expect in a love interest. So much so, he’s a bit of a cliche. Just because he can’t walk doesn’t mean he’s not a stereotypical billionaire love interest.
Cale gets self-conscious about his disability at times, and he has a lot of emotional baggage from that and his ex wife. But he’s pretty easy to get, and I don’t feel the same complexity with him I do with Mickey. That being said, he does have flaws, and I love that. He gets mad at Mickey and fed up with her unwillingness to share.
“Essentially, you’re more than happy to fuck my brains out but you won’t stay by my side. How am I doing so far, Mickey?”
“Cale…”
“So I understand, okay? Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it understanding,” he corrected himself wryly. “But I get it. I get that you need your space. It didn’t take a fucking genius to figure that one out. And I’ve tried my best to respect that…”
True.
“And be patient…”
True.
“And understanding.”
All painfully true.
He suddenly looked exhausted. And he suddenly sounded exhausted, “But Jesus, Mickey.” Shaking his head slowly, Cale blew the hair out of his eyes and sighed, “You need to throw a guy a bone eventually.”
Gotta love that he’s human and isn’t an eternal patience machine. So Cale’s all right. However, the chapters from his point of view are really weird.
They’re short, in first person, and melodramatic. A lot of the time the reader doesn’t get to see where he is or what he’s doing. Instead, they just hear his internal thoughts about Mickey. That’s it. And they’re melodramatic and repetitive, especially in the beginning of the book. The farther into the book, the more fleshed out the chapters get. But a full star is knocked off for those earlier chapters.
Despite that, I definitely recommend reading this book. It’s darker than most contemporary romances, which is very refreshing, but it has plenty of light and hilarious moments. Definitely worth the read.
If you liked this review, or know someone who might like Hart Broken, then I’d definitely appreciate it if you shared this post with your friends. Thank you, and have a great day!
Goodreads Rating: 4.75/5 stars
My rating: 4/5 stars
Mickey Hart doesn’t do one-night stands. Until she wakes up in a luxury penthouse. With nothing but a t-shirt. And no idea who it belongs to.
Enter Cale Windermere. Driven. Ambitious. Successful. And so gorgeous he could’ve walked straight out of a romance novel…
Except he can’t walk. Not that it ever stops him from getting what he wants. And he wants Mickey. Even if she’s keeping secrets from him.
This book…
Where do I even begin? It has a strong start and it stays strong. Mickey is awkward and funny. She starts out at the perfect chick lit character.
“Cale Windermere,” he said, sticking out his hand.
“C-Cale?”
“Yeah. Like the leafy green, just take off the K and replace with a C.”
Oh. My. God.
“And you are?”
“Uh…”
Cale raised an eyebrow, chuckling lightly.
Say something, Mickey.
“I-l’m, uh…”
Something intelligent. And preferably English.
With the help of a mental slap, Mickey willed herself to take his hand and shake it, a bit too eagerly. “I-I’m Mickey.”
It’s difficult not to like her. I like even more that she doesn’t really care Cale’s in a wheelchair and she doesn’t do anything stupid and awkward like kneel down so they’re eye level or act as if he’s an invalid. Even though she does notice the wheelchair, she is easily distracted by how attractive he is.
Carefully taking a sip, Mickey did a once over of the man sitting in front of her. Cale’s shirt was just fitted enough to show off the remarkably solid build of his upper torso. She jotted down a mental list of all his attractive attributes thus far.
Thick, unruly chocolate locks. Gorgeous emerald eyes. Award-winning smile.
And he had a long list of greats.
Great back. Great shoulders. Great chest. Great arms.
Really great arms.
She ran her nails over the hot ceramic.
You’d never think that something was wrong with him.
She wondered if he had great abs too.
So I love Mickey. And the farther I got into the book, the more complex she became. I found myself really wanting to know why she was so commitment shy and found it difficult to sleep in the same bed as someone.
I love Cale a lot too, although not as much as Mickey. He’s charismatic, sexy, and very much in love with Mickey. He’s everything you’d expect in a love interest. So much so, he’s a bit of a cliche. Just because he can’t walk doesn’t mean he’s not a stereotypical billionaire love interest.
Cale gets self-conscious about his disability at times, and he has a lot of emotional baggage from that and his ex wife. But he’s pretty easy to get, and I don’t feel the same complexity with him I do with Mickey. That being said, he does have flaws, and I love that. He gets mad at Mickey and fed up with her unwillingness to share.
“Essentially, you’re more than happy to fuck my brains out but you won’t stay by my side. How am I doing so far, Mickey?”
“Cale…”
“So I understand, okay? Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it understanding,” he corrected himself wryly. “But I get it. I get that you need your space. It didn’t take a fucking genius to figure that one out. And I’ve tried my best to respect that…”
True.
“And be patient…”
True.
“And understanding.”
All painfully true.
He suddenly looked exhausted. And he suddenly sounded exhausted, “But Jesus, Mickey.” Shaking his head slowly, Cale blew the hair out of his eyes and sighed, “You need to throw a guy a bone eventually.”
Gotta love that he’s human and isn’t an eternal patience machine. So Cale’s all right. However, the chapters from his point of view are really weird.
They’re short, in first person, and melodramatic. A lot of the time the reader doesn’t get to see where he is or what he’s doing. Instead, they just hear his internal thoughts about Mickey. That’s it. And they’re melodramatic and repetitive, especially in the beginning of the book. The farther into the book, the more fleshed out the chapters get. But a full star is knocked off for those earlier chapters.
Despite that, I definitely recommend reading this book. It’s darker than most contemporary romances, which is very refreshing, but it has plenty of light and hilarious moments. Definitely worth the read.
If you liked this review, or know someone who might like Hart Broken, then I’d definitely appreciate it if you shared this post with your friends. Thank you, and have a great day!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sorrim in Tabletop Games
Sep 2, 2020
Head to head competitive games are great, especially during the current lockdown situation. My wife and I could play 1v1 games all the time and be quite happy. That’s why we really enjoy abstract games so much. However, head to head fighting card games are something that my wife and I can kinda get heated over. How did Sorrim do for us? Keep reading.
Sorrim is a competitive 1v1 (or 2v2 or 3v3) card game for two players. A player wins once all of their opponent’s fighters have been knocked out. Fighters are all of differing magic (element) types and therefore can only be equipped with sigils (spells and attacks) of matching type. Whittling the opposing fighters’ health to zero will award triumphant players victory!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and all copies will have components matching these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to order from The Game Crafter directly, your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is released. -T
To setup the game, separate and shuffle the fighter deck and sigil deck. Deal each player a set of colored chips to keep track of values for each fighter. Fighter cards will be flipped and revealed at the beginning of the conflict. Roll the die to determine starting player and the game can begin! Note: this preview will be using the introductory 1v1 setup, though games can also be played on 2v2 and 3v3 modes with slightly different rules.
Each fighter will have their own stats to track as shown on their cards: Might, Altruism, Trickery, Health. Fighters will also possess special abilities printed on their cards to be used during the game.
Sigil cards will show either the word “Passive,” which will be active throughout the game or triggered by a special event, or they will show a group of numbers to indicate the required rolls needed to launch a successful attack.
On a player’s turn they will consult the fighter’s passive abilities to see if they will trigger. Next, the player will roll the die and compare with their cards to cast a sigil (spell). If the rolled result matches a sigil it may be cast. Opponents will check any passive abilities and adjust Health by amount of the fighter’s Might. Play continues in this fashion until one player’s fighters are all reduced to zero Health. That player loses and the winner must then mock the loser until the next game played.
Components. This game consists of some cards, a die, and some translucent chips. Each copy will be provided a link to the designer’s document to print off the rulebook and the stat sheets to track fighter stats as they change throughout the game. The cards are acceptable quality, the die is just an entry-level normal d6 (we were sent green with white ink), and the chips are TiddlyWink style. Everything is… fine. The art leaves some to be desired, especially in this era of gaming where art can elevate a good game to great, and a great game to amazing. This art does not help Sorrim. It’s not terrible, but it’s not wonderful either. Not my style.
All in all, the game is actually pretty decent. It is very quick-playing, especially the 1v1 mode, and after playing one game you kinda want to try some of the other fighter and sigil combinations. Any time a game makes you want to play more, that’s a great thing.
With Sorrim, my final thoughts are that it is a good game. I wouldn’t call it great, but there are several interesting mechanics and the variability/replayability built in is quite good. There are lots of two player battle card games, and Sorrim brings something a little different. The theme is enjoyable, and the gameplay is fast. There isn’t a ton of strategy involved as turns are dependent on rolling a number that matches your sigil cards, but it does deliver an easy-feeling, low-stress battle game for two. For some reason you just don’t feel annoyed when you lose, as can be the case with other PvP games. If you are looking for something in your collection that gives you this quick gameplay and is relatively rules-light, head over to The Game Crafter and give Sorrim a try.
Sorrim is a competitive 1v1 (or 2v2 or 3v3) card game for two players. A player wins once all of their opponent’s fighters have been knocked out. Fighters are all of differing magic (element) types and therefore can only be equipped with sigils (spells and attacks) of matching type. Whittling the opposing fighters’ health to zero will award triumphant players victory!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and all copies will have components matching these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to order from The Game Crafter directly, your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is released. -T
To setup the game, separate and shuffle the fighter deck and sigil deck. Deal each player a set of colored chips to keep track of values for each fighter. Fighter cards will be flipped and revealed at the beginning of the conflict. Roll the die to determine starting player and the game can begin! Note: this preview will be using the introductory 1v1 setup, though games can also be played on 2v2 and 3v3 modes with slightly different rules.
Each fighter will have their own stats to track as shown on their cards: Might, Altruism, Trickery, Health. Fighters will also possess special abilities printed on their cards to be used during the game.
Sigil cards will show either the word “Passive,” which will be active throughout the game or triggered by a special event, or they will show a group of numbers to indicate the required rolls needed to launch a successful attack.
On a player’s turn they will consult the fighter’s passive abilities to see if they will trigger. Next, the player will roll the die and compare with their cards to cast a sigil (spell). If the rolled result matches a sigil it may be cast. Opponents will check any passive abilities and adjust Health by amount of the fighter’s Might. Play continues in this fashion until one player’s fighters are all reduced to zero Health. That player loses and the winner must then mock the loser until the next game played.
Components. This game consists of some cards, a die, and some translucent chips. Each copy will be provided a link to the designer’s document to print off the rulebook and the stat sheets to track fighter stats as they change throughout the game. The cards are acceptable quality, the die is just an entry-level normal d6 (we were sent green with white ink), and the chips are TiddlyWink style. Everything is… fine. The art leaves some to be desired, especially in this era of gaming where art can elevate a good game to great, and a great game to amazing. This art does not help Sorrim. It’s not terrible, but it’s not wonderful either. Not my style.
All in all, the game is actually pretty decent. It is very quick-playing, especially the 1v1 mode, and after playing one game you kinda want to try some of the other fighter and sigil combinations. Any time a game makes you want to play more, that’s a great thing.
With Sorrim, my final thoughts are that it is a good game. I wouldn’t call it great, but there are several interesting mechanics and the variability/replayability built in is quite good. There are lots of two player battle card games, and Sorrim brings something a little different. The theme is enjoyable, and the gameplay is fast. There isn’t a ton of strategy involved as turns are dependent on rolling a number that matches your sigil cards, but it does deliver an easy-feeling, low-stress battle game for two. For some reason you just don’t feel annoyed when you lose, as can be the case with other PvP games. If you are looking for something in your collection that gives you this quick gameplay and is relatively rules-light, head over to The Game Crafter and give Sorrim a try.
Chinese Newspapers Plus - Chinese News Plus (by sunflowerapps)
News
App
中文新聞+：這款在多個國家最為暢銷的新聞程序現在提供中文版本。 報紙...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.