Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Care and Management of Lies in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.
British author Jacqueline Winspear states in the letter from the author at the front of the book that the idea for this novel came from a second hand copy of a book titled <i>The Woman’s Book</i> by Florence B Jack (1911) containing an inscription revealing that it was presented as a gift to a woman on her wedding day in July 1914. The story within </i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is Winspear’s imaginings about who that woman was and what her life was like.
The book focuses primarily on four characters, the main being Kezia Brissenden née Marchant who receives the gift <i>The Woman’s Book</i> from a close friend, Dorothy “Thea”, who so happens to be the older sister of her new husband, Tom. The book was not a particularly kind gift as it emphasized Kezia’s upbringing and who, due to her father being a reverend and employer of maids and cooks, had never produced her own meal in her life nor had any experience with running a household, let alone a farm – her new home.
Whilst Kezia determinedly throws herself into her new role, showing her love for Tom through the food she learns to cook, Thea, living in London, is drifting away from their friendship. With the possibility of war on the horizon, Thea joins a pacifist movement, which is somewhat ironic as she was once involved with the suffragettes. On the other hand, once war is declared, Tom decides to enlist in the army as does neighbour, Edmund Hawkes, a man who is rather envious of Tom and his lovely wife. The reader receives two different perspectives of the terrors of war from these characters, but then also another, surprisingly, from Thea who rejects pacifism and goes out to France to help in anyway she can. This leaves Kezia at home alone with the effects the war has on Britain.
The love between Kezia and Tom is emphasized through the letters they send each other. Both are lying about their situations by trying to convince the other that they are better off than they really are. The thing that keeps them both going are Kezia’s descriptions of her fictional meals that she prepares for Tom’s dinner, describing in great detail the preparation and taste of the food.
Each chapter begins with a quote from <i>The Woman’s Book</i> (and later <i>Infantry Training</i> and <i>Field Service Pocket Book</i>) that relate to the particular events occurring in the story at that time. This is a great way of underlining the significance of that wedding present to the storyline.
The narrative quickly changes from character to character which, although helping to keep the pace of the novel, can sometimes be a little confusing. It also made it difficult to get into the story at the beginning. Sometimes it took a lot of concentration to follow the text and those with minds that easily wander may constantly find themselves suddenly reading from a different point of view without having noticed the change over.
Winspear’s grandfather was a soldier in the trenches during the Great War and so it seems likely that some of the scenes may be based on his experiences. If that is the case then it can be believed that <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is as accurate as can be in terms of the war and life on the front lines. Winspear also does not attempt to gloss over any of the war horrors, therefore does not create the unlikely “and they all lived happily ever after” ending that other writers of war stories have done in the past.
Those interested in war themes may be particularly interested in this book, especially as this year (2014) is the anniversary of the Great War. <i>The Care and Management of Lies</i> is a piece of literature to add to the mountain of media coverage of the commemoration of the war.
Cal Brown (53 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 7, 2017
Great alternative perspective on the marvel universe. (4 more)
Great casting. Love the racial diversity and equality of characters.
Amazing references to the original films and the MCU.
Tom Holland's performance and presence is incredible.
Air-gasping plot twists.
The aspect ratio of the smartphone-video diary doesn't make sense. (1 more)
A few minor logic flaws.
Spider-teen
Contains spoilers, click to show
Spiderman, a superhero that has been the go-to Halloween costume for the past 15 years and rightly so. With this being the 6th Spiderman movie, most would expect a drained and exhausted movie. I try to go into the cinema with an unbiased opinion on any movie, but even I expected it. However, it was a replenishing surprise to see a cinematic and equally entertaining Marvel film.
I loved seeing an alternative, somewhat more realistic, perspective on the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Hearing the 'voice of the people' and what students think of the avengers was a quirky amusement.
As a filmmaker, it was incredulous to see a specific inter-textual reference within one of the scenes. Night draws and the Vulture is driving the car with Peter Parker in the back. Things are getting tense as he realises that Peter Parker is Spiderman. The car is stationary at a set of traffic lights. The light turns green, cut to a close up of the Vulutre's face as he replicates the Green Goblin's expression and speaks the exact same words to Spiderman that the Green Goblin did in the very fist movie.
It's hard to believe that Tom Holland (Peter Parker) was born and raised in London as his American accent is spot on! This was complimented by his excellent and energetic performance.
The casting for this film was noteworthy. The racial diversity and equality of characters was great.
There were a few logic flaws within the film, but they're not worth enough value to even discuss them as the story and value of the film overall was excellent. I'm content with giving this film an almost perfect 9/10 as there were a few parts of the story where I felt like it was getting repetitive and the plot was starting to feel a bit 'back-and-forth'.
I loved seeing an alternative, somewhat more realistic, perspective on the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Hearing the 'voice of the people' and what students think of the avengers was a quirky amusement.
As a filmmaker, it was incredulous to see a specific inter-textual reference within one of the scenes. Night draws and the Vulture is driving the car with Peter Parker in the back. Things are getting tense as he realises that Peter Parker is Spiderman. The car is stationary at a set of traffic lights. The light turns green, cut to a close up of the Vulutre's face as he replicates the Green Goblin's expression and speaks the exact same words to Spiderman that the Green Goblin did in the very fist movie.
It's hard to believe that Tom Holland (Peter Parker) was born and raised in London as his American accent is spot on! This was complimented by his excellent and energetic performance.
The casting for this film was noteworthy. The racial diversity and equality of characters was great.
There were a few logic flaws within the film, but they're not worth enough value to even discuss them as the story and value of the film overall was excellent. I'm content with giving this film an almost perfect 9/10 as there were a few parts of the story where I felt like it was getting repetitive and the plot was starting to feel a bit 'back-and-forth'.
After-all-this-time? (11 KP) rated Rock of Ages (2012) in Movies
Jan 6, 2019
Brilliant soundtrack. Great for a singalong. (2 more)
Most of the characters were performed well by the actors and actresses.
A pretty entertaining story.
Tom Cruise. Really not a good fit for the part of Stacy Jaxx. Mostly because of his vocals. (2 more)
Confused scene jumping. Blink and it's somewhere else.
Very stereotyoical boy meets girl plot.
Remember the tale of Dick Whittington, where he travels to London to find his fortune? Trade fortune for fame, add in a cheesy on/off/on again romance with a misunderstanding storyline, and a great singalong soundtrack, and you have Rock of Ages.
It comes across very much as live action Disney for grown ups. The plotline is flimsy, and with more holes than a pair of fishnet tights, but due to its sheer entertainment factor, that doesn't seem important, really.
The soundtrack is great, and if you're into 80's rock then you'll definitely find yourself singing along, and with the tunes stuck in your head for a long time afterwards. The majority of the cast provide great performances (we're not talking Oscar-worthy, but definitely do a great job), although Russell Brand's Brummy accent is a little cringeworthy, it and their singing is great. All but one. Sadly, the absolute weak link in the film is one of the biggest names- Tom Cruise.
The character of Stacy Jaxx needs to be edgy, brash, troubled, arrogant and, ultimately, a huge womaniser. He also needs to have a hard hitting, powerful rock singing voice. Sadly, Cruise doesn't really provide any of this adequately enough. His acting seems 'uncomfortable'- he was definitely out of his comfort zone, and his singing voice just does not cut it. Very unbelievable as the character he's supposed to be portraying. It's a huge shame, because it really does mess up the whole film. The whole film has the potential to be brilliant, but the makers were just short off the mark.
Overall, I did enjoy it, and yes I would watch it again. It's just not great, unfortunately. I imagine the stage version is much better
It comes across very much as live action Disney for grown ups. The plotline is flimsy, and with more holes than a pair of fishnet tights, but due to its sheer entertainment factor, that doesn't seem important, really.
The soundtrack is great, and if you're into 80's rock then you'll definitely find yourself singing along, and with the tunes stuck in your head for a long time afterwards. The majority of the cast provide great performances (we're not talking Oscar-worthy, but definitely do a great job), although Russell Brand's Brummy accent is a little cringeworthy, it and their singing is great. All but one. Sadly, the absolute weak link in the film is one of the biggest names- Tom Cruise.
The character of Stacy Jaxx needs to be edgy, brash, troubled, arrogant and, ultimately, a huge womaniser. He also needs to have a hard hitting, powerful rock singing voice. Sadly, Cruise doesn't really provide any of this adequately enough. His acting seems 'uncomfortable'- he was definitely out of his comfort zone, and his singing voice just does not cut it. Very unbelievable as the character he's supposed to be portraying. It's a huge shame, because it really does mess up the whole film. The whole film has the potential to be brilliant, but the makers were just short off the mark.
Overall, I did enjoy it, and yes I would watch it again. It's just not great, unfortunately. I imagine the stage version is much better
Morgan Spurlock recommended Scanners (1981) in Movies (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Thor: The Dark World starts as Thor (Hemsworth) must restore the power in Asgard after Loki’s (Hiddleston) actions, this has made him in the position he should be, waiting to take over his father Odin’s (Hopkins) role. Meanwhile on Earth Jane (Portman) is trying to move with her life, but in London she discovers an unusual series of events which ends up taking her to Elf world.
When Jane becomes cursed, Thor takes her to Asgard to find a cure, which gives Malekith (Eccleston) a chance to lead his army back into combat so he can return the universe back to darkness. Thor must turn to Loki t help him defeat Malekith and save the universe.
Thoughts on Thor: The Dark World
Characters – Thor is once again preparing to take his throne in Asgard, he has restored faith in the nine realms, but he still misses Jane. When she becomes cursed, he returns to Earth to save her, which only brings back an ancient enemy to the Asgardians in the Dark Elves, he must disobey his father once again to end the threat and save the woman he loves. Jane is trying to get on with her life now, her research has taken her to London where she is trying to get over Thor, her investigation sees her cursed and taken to Asgard to learn about Thor’s home world. Loki is locked up for his actions, after his mother is murdered, Thor turns to him for help to get vengeance. Malekith is the leader of the Dark Elves, he has waited for his chance to bring the universe into darkness once again, killing Frigga the mother of Thor.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth continues to make Thor one of the most entertaining character in the universe. Natalie Portman was known to not be interested in being in the film, it does show in her performance which does disappoint. Tom Hiddleston brings another dimension to his character here which is only going to make him a more loved character. Christopher Eccleston does give us a basic villain, one that is only after power and is mostly under make up, making his performance harder to judge.
Story – The story here follows Thor on his latest adventure, one where he must face an ancient enemy who wants to put the universe into darkness, while finally returning to Jane who has become cursed by the Dark Elves magic. This is another sequel that does address the previous films in the franchise by showing the hints the Thor and Loki could still rebuild their bond even after what Loki has done, we address forbidden relationships between Thor and Jane, have a villain that is obsessed with power, though isn’t the most three-dimensional and see Thor needing to learn more about his responsibilities as a potential king. This is everything you would expect a sequel to be in this universe.
Action/Fantasy – The action involved in this film is mostly big CGI chases sequences between spacecrafts, we do get Thor doing the hammer routine which works well enough for the film. the fantasy side of the film continues to build on the idea that the worlds above have been fighting longer than people could imagine with fresh enemies waiting in the shadows.
Settings – The film uses Asgard, the home world of the Dark Elves and London as the main settings, each has its own action sequences which also shows what Thor is fighting for.
Special Effects – The effects are not as strong as previous films, but we do get some very impressive scenes none the less, the certain moments of weakness do hold the marks up though,
Scene of the Movie – London battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The villain isn’t as interesting as previous ones.
Final Thoughts – This is still an entertaining sequel, it might not be as strong as some of the previous films, but it entertains throughout.
Overall: Fantasy Filled Sequel.
When Jane becomes cursed, Thor takes her to Asgard to find a cure, which gives Malekith (Eccleston) a chance to lead his army back into combat so he can return the universe back to darkness. Thor must turn to Loki t help him defeat Malekith and save the universe.
Thoughts on Thor: The Dark World
Characters – Thor is once again preparing to take his throne in Asgard, he has restored faith in the nine realms, but he still misses Jane. When she becomes cursed, he returns to Earth to save her, which only brings back an ancient enemy to the Asgardians in the Dark Elves, he must disobey his father once again to end the threat and save the woman he loves. Jane is trying to get on with her life now, her research has taken her to London where she is trying to get over Thor, her investigation sees her cursed and taken to Asgard to learn about Thor’s home world. Loki is locked up for his actions, after his mother is murdered, Thor turns to him for help to get vengeance. Malekith is the leader of the Dark Elves, he has waited for his chance to bring the universe into darkness once again, killing Frigga the mother of Thor.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth continues to make Thor one of the most entertaining character in the universe. Natalie Portman was known to not be interested in being in the film, it does show in her performance which does disappoint. Tom Hiddleston brings another dimension to his character here which is only going to make him a more loved character. Christopher Eccleston does give us a basic villain, one that is only after power and is mostly under make up, making his performance harder to judge.
Story – The story here follows Thor on his latest adventure, one where he must face an ancient enemy who wants to put the universe into darkness, while finally returning to Jane who has become cursed by the Dark Elves magic. This is another sequel that does address the previous films in the franchise by showing the hints the Thor and Loki could still rebuild their bond even after what Loki has done, we address forbidden relationships between Thor and Jane, have a villain that is obsessed with power, though isn’t the most three-dimensional and see Thor needing to learn more about his responsibilities as a potential king. This is everything you would expect a sequel to be in this universe.
Action/Fantasy – The action involved in this film is mostly big CGI chases sequences between spacecrafts, we do get Thor doing the hammer routine which works well enough for the film. the fantasy side of the film continues to build on the idea that the worlds above have been fighting longer than people could imagine with fresh enemies waiting in the shadows.
Settings – The film uses Asgard, the home world of the Dark Elves and London as the main settings, each has its own action sequences which also shows what Thor is fighting for.
Special Effects – The effects are not as strong as previous films, but we do get some very impressive scenes none the less, the certain moments of weakness do hold the marks up though,
Scene of the Movie – London battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The villain isn’t as interesting as previous ones.
Final Thoughts – This is still an entertaining sequel, it might not be as strong as some of the previous films, but it entertains throughout.
Overall: Fantasy Filled Sequel.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Legend (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Have you heard of Legend? Not the movie from the mid-eighties, but the story of Ronnie and Reggie Kray (Tom Hardy, playing both brothers). Don’t know who they are, that’s okay, neither did I. But if you are across the pond and are reading this, you probably do. They Kray brothers are twins, and perhaps the most notorious gangsters in London history. Think John Dillinger, or Al Capone, of the UK.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Hunt on the edge… again.
2015’s “MI: Rogue Nation” was one of my favourite films of that year, so of all the summer blockbusters this was the one I was most looking forward to. Was I delighted? It’s a slightly qualified “YES!”.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Nevermoor: The Trials of Morrigan Crow 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 href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-78.png"/>;
After reading (and loving) the Hidden Beach by Karen Swan, as part of the Tandem readalong, the whole group fell in love with Karen's writing, so we decided to continue the streak with reading another book. We chose the Greek Escape, because it was suited perfectly for the summer month of August.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
Running from a heartbreak, Chloe leaves London for a fresh start in New York. She works for a luxury concierge company, where she looks after client's arrangements and event management. But when her friend and colleague Poppy has a terrible accident, she needs to step up and fill her role. This role involves direct customer contact with the clients, which was different to what Chloe was used to.
This is how she meets Joe Lincoln, who asks her to find a secluded holiday home in Greece. You would think all goes by the plan, but her ex, Tom, unexpectedly shows up in New York and she is faced with issues from the past that she wants to run away from. He is the man who has hurt her before, but says he's changed.
She immediately jumps to the chance to help Joe inspect the holiday house - a trip to Greece will give her all the time and space she needs to sort her life out and decide what she wants to do next.
Her mind still unsure about Tom, she also forms a connection with Joe. Even though very mysterious and somehow secluded, there is an undeniable chemistry between them that Chloe is unable to resist. Should she give a second chance to the man she loved for years and years, or is it time for something brand new?
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
This book is perfect to help you forget the current pandemic and give you a nice summer vibe. Even though it’s not entirely set in Greece, but rather mostly set in New York. That being said, Chloe does also travel to the south of France and there are plenty of summer holiday vibes throughout the book as a whole.
<b><i>Karen Swan won me over with her writing again.</i></b>
The description of places, events and characters are so lively and colourful. I felt like I knew Chloe. When she is out for a drink, I felt like I am her friend. When she was in the office, I felt like a colleague. Something that also attracts me to Karen’s writing is her ability to fully materialise the antagonists as well. Even when they have ill intentions or do something bad, she is able to make the readers understand the reasoning behind it and accept it, no matter how wrong it may be.
The premise and the plot were very interesting, and the mystery behind Poppy’s attack kept me glued to the book. I loved how there was suspense in each chapter and slowly revealing the clues.
I felt for Chloe, when it came to her love life. She forgives Tom for years, and all he does is hurt her and then apologise for it! I think she deserves way better, and she should’ve ditched him the first time he screwed up.
I really enjoyed the Greek Escape, and I loved the ending. It was satisfying, how everything ended and was glad Chloe could find true happiness and peace in the end. I definitely recommend this book, and will continue reading Karen Swan’s books with excitement.
<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 href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-78.png"/>;
After reading (and loving) the Hidden Beach by Karen Swan, as part of the Tandem readalong, the whole group fell in love with Karen's writing, so we decided to continue the streak with reading another book. We chose the Greek Escape, because it was suited perfectly for the summer month of August.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
Running from a heartbreak, Chloe leaves London for a fresh start in New York. She works for a luxury concierge company, where she looks after client's arrangements and event management. But when her friend and colleague Poppy has a terrible accident, she needs to step up and fill her role. This role involves direct customer contact with the clients, which was different to what Chloe was used to.
This is how she meets Joe Lincoln, who asks her to find a secluded holiday home in Greece. You would think all goes by the plan, but her ex, Tom, unexpectedly shows up in New York and she is faced with issues from the past that she wants to run away from. He is the man who has hurt her before, but says he's changed.
She immediately jumps to the chance to help Joe inspect the holiday house - a trip to Greece will give her all the time and space she needs to sort her life out and decide what she wants to do next.
Her mind still unsure about Tom, she also forms a connection with Joe. Even though very mysterious and somehow secluded, there is an undeniable chemistry between them that Chloe is unable to resist. Should she give a second chance to the man she loved for years and years, or is it time for something brand new?
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
This book is perfect to help you forget the current pandemic and give you a nice summer vibe. Even though it’s not entirely set in Greece, but rather mostly set in New York. That being said, Chloe does also travel to the south of France and there are plenty of summer holiday vibes throughout the book as a whole.
<b><i>Karen Swan won me over with her writing again.</i></b>
The description of places, events and characters are so lively and colourful. I felt like I knew Chloe. When she is out for a drink, I felt like I am her friend. When she was in the office, I felt like a colleague. Something that also attracts me to Karen’s writing is her ability to fully materialise the antagonists as well. Even when they have ill intentions or do something bad, she is able to make the readers understand the reasoning behind it and accept it, no matter how wrong it may be.
The premise and the plot were very interesting, and the mystery behind Poppy’s attack kept me glued to the book. I loved how there was suspense in each chapter and slowly revealing the clues.
I felt for Chloe, when it came to her love life. She forgives Tom for years, and all he does is hurt her and then apologise for it! I think she deserves way better, and she should’ve ditched him the first time he screwed up.
I really enjoyed the Greek Escape, and I loved the ending. It was satisfying, how everything ended and was glad Chloe could find true happiness and peace in the end. I definitely recommend this book, and will continue reading Karen Swan’s books with excitement.