Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love and Rage against the machine.
The baby asked,
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated Once Upon A (The Stained Duet #1) in Books
Oct 6, 2017
Bloody Hell, What an experience that was, I have absolutely no idea where to start with this review, I have so much white noise running through my head at the mo, this page-turning addictive read has short-wired my ability to well, frankly articulate, I'm like a goldfish gasping unable to convey much at all.
All my concepts and thoughts are ping ponging around my brain as I try to analyse and dissect what I have just indulged in.
So I'm going to try to compartmentalise all my concepts and thoughts internally so I can analyse everything that is "Once Upon A"
I want to remember all my first impressions without forgetting anything as this is such a unique read with so many indefinite angles to the characters involved.
So First Things First, A Warning!!!
This a very dark read, dealing with some very disturbing stuff, if this is not your flavour, well you have been cautioned.
Myself, I happen to like fiction that stretches my boundaries, forcing me to contemplate instances outside my comfort zone, forcing that discomfited almost uneasy feeling.
This definitely Delivered in spades and them some.
So brief synopsis, Alana Williams is an author living with various pen-names One of these names she has decided is going to write the next BDSM/Kink bestseller all she needs is some research into the scene.
Enter Blaine Jacobs, Blaine of the humiliating set-downs and filthy mouth, All round degenerate of the highest order he doesn't play, annihilating his opponent is his kink.
So Alana is going to learn in a big way what it means to be Blaine's obsession and he is going to enjoy every Humiliation and lesson he bestows while making his little brat thank him prettily.
All in the name of research of course.
This Tale is probably gonna be marmite for people, me I abhor the rank stuff, I'm more of a peanut butter sort of gal, this story is so my peanut butter and I was nuts for the whole nine yards.
This book is so much more than the sum of its parts, I really think what this tale ultimately imparted to me, the main lesson I found myself taking away from this was acceptance.
He was right. It's full of honesty and trust, more so perhaps than the normal pronouncement of love. To give yourself to someone who wants to cause pain, needs to even, to offer them that with no recriminations and bathe in the glory of their honesty, too? That's a love unencumbered by restriction or temptation.
So That's all from me guys and gals, So Sorry for the vagueness but this is really something you need to go into blind and just behold.
Once Upon A (The Stained Duet #1) By Charlotte E Hart is so well written and such a fascinating read, managing to portray the decadence of such a lifestyle, while still managing to connect with the reader's heart, this is a rare talent that many authors fail to achieve, not so Miss Hart all her arrows shoot true and I thoroughly enjoyed each and every word, I will be waiting with baited breath for take two of Blaine and Alana.
Thank you to the author for providing me with an advanced readers copy, this is my own personal opinion.
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
All my concepts and thoughts are ping ponging around my brain as I try to analyse and dissect what I have just indulged in.
So I'm going to try to compartmentalise all my concepts and thoughts internally so I can analyse everything that is "Once Upon A"
I want to remember all my first impressions without forgetting anything as this is such a unique read with so many indefinite angles to the characters involved.
So First Things First, A Warning!!!
This a very dark read, dealing with some very disturbing stuff, if this is not your flavour, well you have been cautioned.
Myself, I happen to like fiction that stretches my boundaries, forcing me to contemplate instances outside my comfort zone, forcing that discomfited almost uneasy feeling.
This definitely Delivered in spades and them some.
So brief synopsis, Alana Williams is an author living with various pen-names One of these names she has decided is going to write the next BDSM/Kink bestseller all she needs is some research into the scene.
Enter Blaine Jacobs, Blaine of the humiliating set-downs and filthy mouth, All round degenerate of the highest order he doesn't play, annihilating his opponent is his kink.
So Alana is going to learn in a big way what it means to be Blaine's obsession and he is going to enjoy every Humiliation and lesson he bestows while making his little brat thank him prettily.
All in the name of research of course.
This Tale is probably gonna be marmite for people, me I abhor the rank stuff, I'm more of a peanut butter sort of gal, this story is so my peanut butter and I was nuts for the whole nine yards.
This book is so much more than the sum of its parts, I really think what this tale ultimately imparted to me, the main lesson I found myself taking away from this was acceptance.
He was right. It's full of honesty and trust, more so perhaps than the normal pronouncement of love. To give yourself to someone who wants to cause pain, needs to even, to offer them that with no recriminations and bathe in the glory of their honesty, too? That's a love unencumbered by restriction or temptation.
So That's all from me guys and gals, So Sorry for the vagueness but this is really something you need to go into blind and just behold.
Once Upon A (The Stained Duet #1) By Charlotte E Hart is so well written and such a fascinating read, managing to portray the decadence of such a lifestyle, while still managing to connect with the reader's heart, this is a rare talent that many authors fail to achieve, not so Miss Hart all her arrows shoot true and I thoroughly enjoyed each and every word, I will be waiting with baited breath for take two of Blaine and Alana.
Thank you to the author for providing me with an advanced readers copy, this is my own personal opinion.
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Hugh Jackman completes his journey as Wolverine (1 more)
An emotional journey
Mutant with Human emotion
There are so many superhero movies these days, that the genre becomes somewhat dull and repetitive, especially when it comes to Marvel (not saying Marvel is dull and boring, but some of the films are somewhat lacking due to how many films there are each year - Just my opinion), but Logan is one of the greatest comic book movies I have seen for a while, for the fact that it makes Logan more human and explores the feeling of trying to fit into society, despite being so different.
Logan has always had a part of him deep down that just wants to be normal. He never wanted his power and though he's thankful for it in some ways he feels like he wouldn't have been lost without it if he never had it to begin with. This film explores that notion even further than the previous films as shows us Logan in the role of a father figure to young Laura and a son figure to a now very old Charles Xavier. In this film Logan doesn't feel like he's a mutant in the company of other mutants, He feels like he's apart of a family.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!
Later in the film we see Logan's fatherly side after Charles passes away, and Logan risks everything to keep Laura safe and to teach her right and wrong, and give her a parenting love that she hasn't known before in her young life. This also shines through the portrayal of young Laura (portrayed by the talented Dafne Keen) as we see her become more and more attached to Old Man Logan (I had to!). This is what makes this film the most human feeling superhero movie that I've ever seen.
The R rating makes this film come to life by bringing death in the most brutal of ways because it allows Laura to see what Logan has become and makes his message to her and to the audience a lot clearer. "Don't become what they made you"
Through all of the bloody violence and anger Laura is able to understand those words more clearly than if it was a 15 rated film because we see Logan when he becomes savage and truly unleashes his full anger that's built up over his long lifetime of war and hatred.
When this film comes to an end (my lord that ending had me balling like a baby) and we see Laura say her final goodbyes to Logan, you don't want it to end because you know that this has finally been the one time that Logan felt human and felt a true connection to someone. (Also because we want Hugh Jackman to be Wolverine forever)
The cinematography and directing of this movie is beautiful to look at and witness as the scenes unfold. The cast perform to the highest of standards and really deliver a convincing story the makes you feel sympathetic to each of the main characters.
Wolverine will never be the same without Hugh Jackman, but we must not be too quick to dismiss the new casting choice when it comes around. You never know, they might surprise you.
Logan has always had a part of him deep down that just wants to be normal. He never wanted his power and though he's thankful for it in some ways he feels like he wouldn't have been lost without it if he never had it to begin with. This film explores that notion even further than the previous films as shows us Logan in the role of a father figure to young Laura and a son figure to a now very old Charles Xavier. In this film Logan doesn't feel like he's a mutant in the company of other mutants, He feels like he's apart of a family.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!
Later in the film we see Logan's fatherly side after Charles passes away, and Logan risks everything to keep Laura safe and to teach her right and wrong, and give her a parenting love that she hasn't known before in her young life. This also shines through the portrayal of young Laura (portrayed by the talented Dafne Keen) as we see her become more and more attached to Old Man Logan (I had to!). This is what makes this film the most human feeling superhero movie that I've ever seen.
The R rating makes this film come to life by bringing death in the most brutal of ways because it allows Laura to see what Logan has become and makes his message to her and to the audience a lot clearer. "Don't become what they made you"
Through all of the bloody violence and anger Laura is able to understand those words more clearly than if it was a 15 rated film because we see Logan when he becomes savage and truly unleashes his full anger that's built up over his long lifetime of war and hatred.
When this film comes to an end (my lord that ending had me balling like a baby) and we see Laura say her final goodbyes to Logan, you don't want it to end because you know that this has finally been the one time that Logan felt human and felt a true connection to someone. (Also because we want Hugh Jackman to be Wolverine forever)
The cinematography and directing of this movie is beautiful to look at and witness as the scenes unfold. The cast perform to the highest of standards and really deliver a convincing story the makes you feel sympathetic to each of the main characters.
Wolverine will never be the same without Hugh Jackman, but we must not be too quick to dismiss the new casting choice when it comes around. You never know, they might surprise you.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
Solid Gold Movie
Chaos ensues when a bunch or salesman at a real estate agency are forced into a high-stakes game where they either become top closers or get fired.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
You think the beginning is going to be weak…until Blake (Alec Baldwin) walks in. He is filled with such passion and rage, but the one thing he is lacking is fucks. Blake has zero fucks to give about anyone’s feelings or their jobs. “Fuck you, that’s my name!” he screams at someone thinking they will get the upperhand on him. Classic.
Characters: 10
Aside from Blake, the rest of the characters add depth to the movie. With their different personalities, each character has a distinctly different approach to the way that they sell and go about winning. Their choices and reactions hold sway over which direction the movie turns and what the audience thinks is going to happen next. As things unfold and they end up being questioned by the Detective (Jude Ciccolella), it’s interesting to watch them have different responses to the pressure.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I love the cinematic work here. The entire film has a dreary feel, almost like there’s a fog being cast over the characters and their dilemma. The light comes in small glimpses and you mostly see rain throughout. It has a suffocating feel, adding even more certainty that the characters are resigned to their own fate.
Conflict: 10
Look, I’m in sales and few things institute conflict like sales situations. Tell a bunch of guys that they either hit their numbers or they’re fired and there’s bound to be problems. As the film drags on, the desperation becomes even heavier. You feel for these guys, but not so much so that you don’t get the enjoyment of watching them crumble in high pressure situations. As douchey as it sounds, it’s actually kind of fun.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Once Blake enters the scene, the movie maintains its pace from start to finish. Fueled by conflict and desperation, the characters ultimately create a mystery that you want to get to the bottom of before the movie reaches its end. It’s refreshing when you watch a movie that doesn’t have any dead spots and director James Foley succeeded in making that a reality.
Plot: 10
What happens when you put a bunch of different personalities in a room and tell them they have a certain amount of time to complete a goal or else? The story is ultimately moved by how people respond to pressure situations. I can imagine when this was written, the direction may have changed directions a couple of times due to the personalities of the characters. Memorable characters can alter the direction of a plot for the sake of staying true to the characters.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 87
I hadn’t even heard of this movie until a couple of years ago. It’s funny, this movie was recommended to me by a Sales Manager who thought, “This is how the sales team should go after it!” After watching it, I thought, “This isn’t how selling should be at all!” Glengarry Glen Ross succeeds because it appeals to people for different reasons. Some see it as a cautionary tale while others view it as inspiration. I am in the camp of the former. I’m also in the popular majority that think the movie is awesome.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
You think the beginning is going to be weak…until Blake (Alec Baldwin) walks in. He is filled with such passion and rage, but the one thing he is lacking is fucks. Blake has zero fucks to give about anyone’s feelings or their jobs. “Fuck you, that’s my name!” he screams at someone thinking they will get the upperhand on him. Classic.
Characters: 10
Aside from Blake, the rest of the characters add depth to the movie. With their different personalities, each character has a distinctly different approach to the way that they sell and go about winning. Their choices and reactions hold sway over which direction the movie turns and what the audience thinks is going to happen next. As things unfold and they end up being questioned by the Detective (Jude Ciccolella), it’s interesting to watch them have different responses to the pressure.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I love the cinematic work here. The entire film has a dreary feel, almost like there’s a fog being cast over the characters and their dilemma. The light comes in small glimpses and you mostly see rain throughout. It has a suffocating feel, adding even more certainty that the characters are resigned to their own fate.
Conflict: 10
Look, I’m in sales and few things institute conflict like sales situations. Tell a bunch of guys that they either hit their numbers or they’re fired and there’s bound to be problems. As the film drags on, the desperation becomes even heavier. You feel for these guys, but not so much so that you don’t get the enjoyment of watching them crumble in high pressure situations. As douchey as it sounds, it’s actually kind of fun.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Once Blake enters the scene, the movie maintains its pace from start to finish. Fueled by conflict and desperation, the characters ultimately create a mystery that you want to get to the bottom of before the movie reaches its end. It’s refreshing when you watch a movie that doesn’t have any dead spots and director James Foley succeeded in making that a reality.
Plot: 10
What happens when you put a bunch of different personalities in a room and tell them they have a certain amount of time to complete a goal or else? The story is ultimately moved by how people respond to pressure situations. I can imagine when this was written, the direction may have changed directions a couple of times due to the personalities of the characters. Memorable characters can alter the direction of a plot for the sake of staying true to the characters.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 87
I hadn’t even heard of this movie until a couple of years ago. It’s funny, this movie was recommended to me by a Sales Manager who thought, “This is how the sales team should go after it!” After watching it, I thought, “This isn’t how selling should be at all!” Glengarry Glen Ross succeeds because it appeals to people for different reasons. Some see it as a cautionary tale while others view it as inspiration. I am in the camp of the former. I’m also in the popular majority that think the movie is awesome.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2019
Thought-Provoking
Roma follows the story of Cleo, a domestic worker for a middle class family in Mexico. who is dealing with the strife of classism in the 70’s.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Intriguing and refreshing mystery
Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock is working in Melbourne now, trying to negotiate relationships with her new boss, Chief Inspector Toby Isaacs, and her partner, Detective Sergeant Fleet. She has been in Melbourne for three months; this has meant leaving behind her five-year-old son, Ben, and his father, Scott. She's keeping busy with a series of cases, including that of a homeless man, Walter Miller, who was brutally killed and one with the famous actor, Sterling Wade, who was stabbed while filming a high-profile zombie film. Alone and away from her son, Gemma throws herself into her work, but will these difficult cases prove too much for her and her emotional well-being?
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Adults in Books
Mar 20, 2019
Quick read with its funny moments
Matt and Claire are no longer married, but both want to spend the Christmas holiday with their seven-year-old daughter, Scarlett. It's not quite clear whose idea it was, or how the whole thing came about, but suddenly Matt, Claire, their new partners, and Scarlett are spending a long weekend at the Happy Forest holiday park. Oh yes, and we can't forget that Posey, Scarlett's giant imaginary friend--a nearly life-size rabbit--is along for the ride too. Claire has brought Patrick, a fellow lawyer, a seemingly rational guy who loves Scarlett and is training for an Ironman. And Matt has brought Alex, his scientist girlfriend, who is skeptical about the whole affair. Suddenly the group is jammed into a small lodge, subject to the whims of a mercurial seven-year-old (and her pretend rabbit), and stuck doing a variety of "fun family activities." It's no wonder that this all leads to an event so horrific that the police are called.
This book was an odd one, as if it couldn't decide to be serious or funny. It starts out with a call to the police, so we know that someone has been shot at archery, but we don't yet know who. Then things unfold from the beginning of the holiday, slowly building back up to the incident. Interspersed with the characters' narratives are bits and pieces of the police's discussion with various people at the holiday park involved with the shooting. It's interesting, but it's a little disconcerting: partial mystery/partial character-driven novel/partial "humorous look at family fun gone wrong."
Unfortunately for me, I didn't find a lot of the book all that fun. Yes, I could see the humor in some of the situations, but honestly, a lot of it just made me uncomfortable. Perhaps it's being a child of divorce myself. Maybe too much hit close to home. I felt the most for poor Alex, who was tortured by Scarlett (and that darn fake bunny) and then forced to witness her boyfriend in a series of cozy moments with her ex. Patrick was slightly insane, Claire too good to be true, and Matt, honestly, an infuriating wuss for most of the book. As everyone got more and more tired of each other, I would have had a feeling of doom reading this even without knowing someone gets shot. You just know no good can come of this.
Now, yes, there is some dark humor here, and I did laugh at times. There are definitely some funny places. But I think Scarlett and Posey were supposed to be more funny than they were (I've been that kid angry at her parents for divorcing, but man, Scarlett was really irritating sometimes). When you really only feel for one of the characters (Alex), it's hard to stay invested in the book. Luckily, things improved a bit closer to the end, and I found myself getting a more into the story. Still, I couldn't help but find things a bit implausible and frustrating at times, and I really longed for more of the hilarity the book promised.
Overall, this is a quick read, and it has its funny, crazy moments. Still, the characters are tough to feel invested in and sometimes the plot was almost too zany and stressful for me. I liked this one, but didn't love it.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This book was an odd one, as if it couldn't decide to be serious or funny. It starts out with a call to the police, so we know that someone has been shot at archery, but we don't yet know who. Then things unfold from the beginning of the holiday, slowly building back up to the incident. Interspersed with the characters' narratives are bits and pieces of the police's discussion with various people at the holiday park involved with the shooting. It's interesting, but it's a little disconcerting: partial mystery/partial character-driven novel/partial "humorous look at family fun gone wrong."
Unfortunately for me, I didn't find a lot of the book all that fun. Yes, I could see the humor in some of the situations, but honestly, a lot of it just made me uncomfortable. Perhaps it's being a child of divorce myself. Maybe too much hit close to home. I felt the most for poor Alex, who was tortured by Scarlett (and that darn fake bunny) and then forced to witness her boyfriend in a series of cozy moments with her ex. Patrick was slightly insane, Claire too good to be true, and Matt, honestly, an infuriating wuss for most of the book. As everyone got more and more tired of each other, I would have had a feeling of doom reading this even without knowing someone gets shot. You just know no good can come of this.
Now, yes, there is some dark humor here, and I did laugh at times. There are definitely some funny places. But I think Scarlett and Posey were supposed to be more funny than they were (I've been that kid angry at her parents for divorcing, but man, Scarlett was really irritating sometimes). When you really only feel for one of the characters (Alex), it's hard to stay invested in the book. Luckily, things improved a bit closer to the end, and I found myself getting a more into the story. Still, I couldn't help but find things a bit implausible and frustrating at times, and I really longed for more of the hilarity the book promised.
Overall, this is a quick read, and it has its funny, crazy moments. Still, the characters are tough to feel invested in and sometimes the plot was almost too zany and stressful for me. I liked this one, but didn't love it.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Debbiereadsbook (1437 KP) rated Retribution (The Protectors #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2019
My fav of the three so far!
*verified Audible purchase June 2017*
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/