Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Bookish Life of Nina Hill in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Nina Hill has her life just how she wants it: a job at a bookstore, an apartment with a reading nook and her cat Phil, and her days scheduled around her organized planner. But her neatly designed life gets a big shock when the father she never knew suddenly dies, giving Nina newfound knowledge of a host of brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. Add on to that a crush on her trivia nemesis, Tom, and Nina's careful life is a mess.
I've been wanting to read this for a while, as it sounded totally up my alley, and it so was. It's a major ode to books and bookworms. I felt such an affinity to Nina, and I found the book to be witty and sweet. When I first started it, I was worried it might be a little too cute (the writing style is quirky and different), but Nina and the writing quickly grew on me.
There's so much to love and identify with in this one--about books and bookstores, trivia, family, love, and it deftly handles anxiety and introversion. I'm sure so many readers will find parts of themselves in Nina. I know I did.
"As an only child of a single mother, Nina's natural state was solitude. Growing up, she saw other people with fathers and brothers and sisters, and it looked like fun, but generally, she thought she was better of without a crowd."
I absolutely adored how Nina's finding her new family changed her--it was touching and funny. The cast of characters we meet is hilarious and yet poignant at times. Because Nina's (now late) father was older, she has brothers and sisters of a variety of ages, as well as a charming gay nephew. But watching her come out of her shell, meeting these people, is really lovely. (And brave.)
"Nina worried she liked being alone too much; it was the only time she ever fully relaxed. People were... exhausting. They made her anxious."
Honestly, I loved Nina. The way she interacted with the kids in the various book groups she ran at the bookstore. The way she handled falling for Tom. The way she loved her cat. The realistic way she presented her anxiety. The fact that she was introverted but friendly and kind. (Imagine that? Introverts can be fun, not just evil curmudgeons.) Her deep love of books and her desire to help other people love books, too. I could go on and on.
While you can see how some of this story will play out, it doesn't make it any less fun to read. It's really sweet, funny, and enjoyable. I totally fell for Nina and found it so easy to get caught up in her story and her life. This book was very touching, and I totally teared up at the end, which is rare for me. Definitely recommend this one. 4+ stars.
I've been wanting to read this for a while, as it sounded totally up my alley, and it so was. It's a major ode to books and bookworms. I felt such an affinity to Nina, and I found the book to be witty and sweet. When I first started it, I was worried it might be a little too cute (the writing style is quirky and different), but Nina and the writing quickly grew on me.
There's so much to love and identify with in this one--about books and bookstores, trivia, family, love, and it deftly handles anxiety and introversion. I'm sure so many readers will find parts of themselves in Nina. I know I did.
"As an only child of a single mother, Nina's natural state was solitude. Growing up, she saw other people with fathers and brothers and sisters, and it looked like fun, but generally, she thought she was better of without a crowd."
I absolutely adored how Nina's finding her new family changed her--it was touching and funny. The cast of characters we meet is hilarious and yet poignant at times. Because Nina's (now late) father was older, she has brothers and sisters of a variety of ages, as well as a charming gay nephew. But watching her come out of her shell, meeting these people, is really lovely. (And brave.)
"Nina worried she liked being alone too much; it was the only time she ever fully relaxed. People were... exhausting. They made her anxious."
Honestly, I loved Nina. The way she interacted with the kids in the various book groups she ran at the bookstore. The way she handled falling for Tom. The way she loved her cat. The realistic way she presented her anxiety. The fact that she was introverted but friendly and kind. (Imagine that? Introverts can be fun, not just evil curmudgeons.) Her deep love of books and her desire to help other people love books, too. I could go on and on.
While you can see how some of this story will play out, it doesn't make it any less fun to read. It's really sweet, funny, and enjoyable. I totally fell for Nina and found it so easy to get caught up in her story and her life. This book was very touching, and I totally teared up at the end, which is rare for me. Definitely recommend this one. 4+ stars.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Spider-Man Knocks It Out Of The Park In This Summer Vacation Superhero Hybrid
Spider-Man Far From Home is a 2019 superhero movie directed by Jon Watts and written by Chris Mckenna and Erik Sommers. It was co-produced by Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. The movie stars Tom Holland, Zendaya, Samuel Jackson, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau, and Jake Gyllenhaal.
The Midtown School of Science and Technology in New York City organizes a two-week summer field trip to Europe to accommodate the students who were resurrected by "the blip". Peter plans to avoid heroics and confess his feelings to "MJ" on this trip but is warned by Happy that Nick Fury is trying to get in contact with him. Distraught about the events in Endgame and the questions overwhelming him about Tony Stark, Peter decides to not answer when Fury calls him causing Fury to seek him out on his vacation.
This movie was phenomenal. It was really awesome and a perfect summer action blockbuster. Marvel did not drop the ball with this one and I'm so glad I saw it before anybody spoiled it for me because it had plenty of surprises. Especially the after credits scenes, the one after the movie finishes and the one at the very end after the credits. Jake Gyllenhaal was perfect as Mysterio and his acting was on point and Ned (Jacob Battalon) was awesome as Pete's best friend and wing-man in this movie too. The action was great and the effects were spectacular especially for Mysterio and his powers, they really did a amazing job. I really couldn't find much that I didn't like in this movie other than a couple ways the plot or story didn't unfold in a way that I liked; but that's probably me just being picky and a super fan from the comics and watching the cartoons. Also a part having to do with Peter taking a major injury and kind of just shrugging it off when he should have been hurt worse. Zendaya did a good job of portraying "MJ" and showing her come out of her shell a little more too which I though was also cool. I give this movie a 8/10 and I also give it my "Must See Seal of Approval" If you haven't seen this movie yet, what are you waiting for?
The Midtown School of Science and Technology in New York City organizes a two-week summer field trip to Europe to accommodate the students who were resurrected by "the blip". Peter plans to avoid heroics and confess his feelings to "MJ" on this trip but is warned by Happy that Nick Fury is trying to get in contact with him. Distraught about the events in Endgame and the questions overwhelming him about Tony Stark, Peter decides to not answer when Fury calls him causing Fury to seek him out on his vacation.
This movie was phenomenal. It was really awesome and a perfect summer action blockbuster. Marvel did not drop the ball with this one and I'm so glad I saw it before anybody spoiled it for me because it had plenty of surprises. Especially the after credits scenes, the one after the movie finishes and the one at the very end after the credits. Jake Gyllenhaal was perfect as Mysterio and his acting was on point and Ned (Jacob Battalon) was awesome as Pete's best friend and wing-man in this movie too. The action was great and the effects were spectacular especially for Mysterio and his powers, they really did a amazing job. I really couldn't find much that I didn't like in this movie other than a couple ways the plot or story didn't unfold in a way that I liked; but that's probably me just being picky and a super fan from the comics and watching the cartoons. Also a part having to do with Peter taking a major injury and kind of just shrugging it off when he should have been hurt worse. Zendaya did a good job of portraying "MJ" and showing her come out of her shell a little more too which I though was also cool. I give this movie a 8/10 and I also give it my "Must See Seal of Approval" If you haven't seen this movie yet, what are you waiting for?
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
Cecilia Kass (Elizabeth Moss) is a woman living in fear. Despite living a life of wealth and privilege in a seaside home; she is ready to take drastic steps in her life.
Cecilia is trying to escape from her controlling and abusive husband who despite being considered a wealthy genius in the field of Optics; has made her life a living hell and forces her to make a daring escape that has her barely getting away with the help of her sister Alice (Harriett Dyer).
The film picks up two weeks later where Cecilia is hiding with a friend of her sister Officer James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Cecilia is scared to even leave the house and do simple tasks such as checking the mailbox and is livid when her sister comes to visit as she is sure that her husband will find her by tracking her Sister.
Alice informs Cecilia that her husband has killed himself and she is now free to live without fear. Cecilia gets a letter informing her that she is to receive 100K a month to the sum of five million dollars as part of her husband’s will. The fact that nobody should have her mailing address does seem odd to her as does that fact that the estate is being handled by her ex’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman).
With her new wealth Cecilia gifts James and also sets up a school fund for Sydney and begins to emerge from her shell.
It is around this time that unusual things begin to happen to her. A lost item from the night of her escape shows up and a mysterious kitchen fire starts. Cecelia also wakes up to find the covers off the bed and what appears to be something unseen standing on the blankets when she attempts to pull them up.
When she expresses her concerns to James that her husband is alive and exacting revenge, both he and Tom ignore her and when things begin to escalate, Cecilia is the one who starts to look more and more unstable as the tormenting continues and her life spins out of control.
The film is Written and Directed by Leigh Whannell who rose to prominence as one of the co-creators of the “SAW” franchise. The film is the perfect example of how to do a film of this sort as it is very clever in how it is paced and allows for the suspense to build without relying on many of the standard Horror Film staples.
The film is also good about having things happen before it pulls back so it is not an extended series of intense moments but several incidents between the tension and setup.
The cast is very good and what is amazing is that the film was made for a $7 million dollar budget yet looks every bit of a major studio film.
There are some interesting twists along the way as while I was able to predict two of them; the others were a very nice surprise.
It is so refreshing to see a film like this come along as in many ways it can help redefine the Horror genre and proves that you can make a quality movie that is also scary and intense.
I for one hope we see more from this franchise in the near future.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Cecilia is trying to escape from her controlling and abusive husband who despite being considered a wealthy genius in the field of Optics; has made her life a living hell and forces her to make a daring escape that has her barely getting away with the help of her sister Alice (Harriett Dyer).
The film picks up two weeks later where Cecilia is hiding with a friend of her sister Officer James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Cecilia is scared to even leave the house and do simple tasks such as checking the mailbox and is livid when her sister comes to visit as she is sure that her husband will find her by tracking her Sister.
Alice informs Cecilia that her husband has killed himself and she is now free to live without fear. Cecilia gets a letter informing her that she is to receive 100K a month to the sum of five million dollars as part of her husband’s will. The fact that nobody should have her mailing address does seem odd to her as does that fact that the estate is being handled by her ex’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman).
With her new wealth Cecilia gifts James and also sets up a school fund for Sydney and begins to emerge from her shell.
It is around this time that unusual things begin to happen to her. A lost item from the night of her escape shows up and a mysterious kitchen fire starts. Cecelia also wakes up to find the covers off the bed and what appears to be something unseen standing on the blankets when she attempts to pull them up.
When she expresses her concerns to James that her husband is alive and exacting revenge, both he and Tom ignore her and when things begin to escalate, Cecilia is the one who starts to look more and more unstable as the tormenting continues and her life spins out of control.
The film is Written and Directed by Leigh Whannell who rose to prominence as one of the co-creators of the “SAW” franchise. The film is the perfect example of how to do a film of this sort as it is very clever in how it is paced and allows for the suspense to build without relying on many of the standard Horror Film staples.
The film is also good about having things happen before it pulls back so it is not an extended series of intense moments but several incidents between the tension and setup.
The cast is very good and what is amazing is that the film was made for a $7 million dollar budget yet looks every bit of a major studio film.
There are some interesting twists along the way as while I was able to predict two of them; the others were a very nice surprise.
It is so refreshing to see a film like this come along as in many ways it can help redefine the Horror genre and proves that you can make a quality movie that is also scary and intense.
I for one hope we see more from this franchise in the near future.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Collateral (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Max (Jamie Foxx), is a man with ambition. He toils his evenings driving a cab in Los Angeles while dreaming of opening his own limo company and making it big. Sadly Max is also a man who is hampered by indecision, as he is unable to take the final step to move towards his dream preferring for the comfort of always dreaming rather than achieving.
In the new Drama “Collateral”, Max is about to have his notion of life and the world turned upside down by a passenger named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who is a polar opposite of Max in every way. Vincent is a well-dressed business man who hires Max for the evening as he needs to make five stops in order to complete what he says are real estate deals. Although reluctant at first, the thought of $600.00 for a few hours work soon convinces Max to take the job and ferry Vincent around Los Angeles.
En route to the first stop, Vincent questions Max about why he is waiting to start his company when he could easily lease a Town car to get started and expand from there. The question unsettles the usually mild Max as what the stranger is saying makes a lot of sense but it also undermines the fact that Max is uncomfortable with taking the next step be it in his business ventures or in his social life such as calling an attractive attorney who was clearly interested in him.
While waiting for Vincent after the first stop, the sky literally falls upon Max’s word when a body crashes on his cab and Vincent forces Max at gunpoint to hide the body and continue driving him around. Vincent has one evening to complete his rounds and each stop will result in another death despite Max’s best efforts to intervene. No matter what Max attempts to get out of the situation or to again help, Vincent is always one step ahead of him and able to manipulate Max.
It does not take long for the tense situation to escalate as the result of Vincent’s work has not gone unnoticed by the police largely due to Max’s involvement, and this only causes Vincent to become even more focused and even more of a danger to Max as he needs to complete his tasks before morning and stay ahead of the police and other potential dangers.
“Collateral” is a gripping and intense thriller that contains some of the best work Cruise has done in his career as he portrays Vincent as a complex character who does not find fault with what he does and has no qualms about taking life, yet is amazed by Max and his unrealized dreams and moved by a performance at a local Jazz club.
One could almost call Vincent a Gentleman bandit were it not for the vast amounts of death and destruction he leaves in his wake. He is clearly an intelligent person who makes no apologies for what he does as he sees it as an insignificant blip in the vast universe.
Foxx meanwhile plays off character as he plays a very quite and withdrawn individual that has to be forced out of his shell. After years of playing brash and outrageous characters it was refreshing to see this talented actor turn in an emotional yet restrained performance that shows that he is a talent on the rise and if properly used, can be a gigantic star as not only is he capable of humor and drama, he can easily move to action when it is warranted and looks comfy and competent doing so.
The film also has some impressive visuals as Director Michael Mann gives viewers some amazing shots of the L.A. skyline at night, and the way he shoots the streets and back alleys with a neon glow gives the film a very natural look. On more than one occasion, I go a sense of déjà vu as the natural manner in which the surrounding city and citizens behave and look like a day in the life of rather than a movie set.
The film does drag a bit roughly ¾ in and some may find the ending a bit pat, but that being said, “Collateral” is a solid action drama and one of the best films of the year.
In the new Drama “Collateral”, Max is about to have his notion of life and the world turned upside down by a passenger named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who is a polar opposite of Max in every way. Vincent is a well-dressed business man who hires Max for the evening as he needs to make five stops in order to complete what he says are real estate deals. Although reluctant at first, the thought of $600.00 for a few hours work soon convinces Max to take the job and ferry Vincent around Los Angeles.
En route to the first stop, Vincent questions Max about why he is waiting to start his company when he could easily lease a Town car to get started and expand from there. The question unsettles the usually mild Max as what the stranger is saying makes a lot of sense but it also undermines the fact that Max is uncomfortable with taking the next step be it in his business ventures or in his social life such as calling an attractive attorney who was clearly interested in him.
While waiting for Vincent after the first stop, the sky literally falls upon Max’s word when a body crashes on his cab and Vincent forces Max at gunpoint to hide the body and continue driving him around. Vincent has one evening to complete his rounds and each stop will result in another death despite Max’s best efforts to intervene. No matter what Max attempts to get out of the situation or to again help, Vincent is always one step ahead of him and able to manipulate Max.
It does not take long for the tense situation to escalate as the result of Vincent’s work has not gone unnoticed by the police largely due to Max’s involvement, and this only causes Vincent to become even more focused and even more of a danger to Max as he needs to complete his tasks before morning and stay ahead of the police and other potential dangers.
“Collateral” is a gripping and intense thriller that contains some of the best work Cruise has done in his career as he portrays Vincent as a complex character who does not find fault with what he does and has no qualms about taking life, yet is amazed by Max and his unrealized dreams and moved by a performance at a local Jazz club.
One could almost call Vincent a Gentleman bandit were it not for the vast amounts of death and destruction he leaves in his wake. He is clearly an intelligent person who makes no apologies for what he does as he sees it as an insignificant blip in the vast universe.
Foxx meanwhile plays off character as he plays a very quite and withdrawn individual that has to be forced out of his shell. After years of playing brash and outrageous characters it was refreshing to see this talented actor turn in an emotional yet restrained performance that shows that he is a talent on the rise and if properly used, can be a gigantic star as not only is he capable of humor and drama, he can easily move to action when it is warranted and looks comfy and competent doing so.
The film also has some impressive visuals as Director Michael Mann gives viewers some amazing shots of the L.A. skyline at night, and the way he shoots the streets and back alleys with a neon glow gives the film a very natural look. On more than one occasion, I go a sense of déjà vu as the natural manner in which the surrounding city and citizens behave and look like a day in the life of rather than a movie set.
The film does drag a bit roughly ¾ in and some may find the ending a bit pat, but that being said, “Collateral” is a solid action drama and one of the best films of the year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.