Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Kid Who Would Be King (2019) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
We've had plenty of spins on the legend of King Arthur over the years. Probably the most enjoyable for me was BBC show 'Merlin', which ran for 5 seasons between 2008 and 2012, focusing on the early life of the famous sorcerer and King Arthur. Probably the worst take on it all was Guy Ritchie's god awful 'Legend Of The Sword' back in 2017. Joe Cornish, writer/director of the brilliant 2011 movie 'Attack The Block', follows that movie with a fresh spin of his own in 'The Kid Who Would Be King'.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with the legend of Arthur, or who had it's memory tarnished by Mr Guy Ritchie, it's recapped for us here in a nice little animated sequence right at the start of the movie. It tells how the evil Morgana was banished to the underworld, vowing to return once more when the world is again divided and at its weakest.
We then join Alex (played by Louis Serkis, son of Andy Serkis), a 12 year old schoolboy living with his mother. He's having some trouble with bullies at school, made worse by his attempts to stand up to them as they terrorise his friend Bedders. One night, while fleeing from bullies Lance and Kay, he stumbles into a building site where he discovers a sword set in stone. He manages to pull it free and takes it home in his backpack, where he and Bedders determine that the sword is in fact the legendary Excalibur.
The next day a mysterious new boy joins them at school. Turns out, he is in fact Merlin, taking the form of a younger boy. He informs Alex and Bedders that they must form a team of knights in order to prepare for the imminent return of Morgana and her army of dead soldiers. They have just 4 days, with her arrival taking place during an upcoming solar eclipse. If they cannot stop her, then she will enslave the Earths inhabitants.
Alex believes that his father is key to all of this, and that he is in fact descended from Arthur, so he decides to go on a quest to Tintagel, the last place that he saw his father. Alex leaves a note for his mum - "Gone on quest to save Britain, don’t worry!” and begins 'knighting' Bedders, and eventually bullies Lance and Kay, as only those that have been knighted are able to see and fight the dead soldiers that come at night.
Their journey takes them via coach, through a portal at Stone Henge, and on a trek across the English countryside where they stop to allow Merlin time to provide them with the sword training they need in order to stand any chance of defeating Morgana. Merlin regularly changes his form, switching between young boy, an owl and his true elderly self (played by Patrick Stewart). In the form of a boy, Merlin is a little bit wacky, performing his magic with a series of clicking hand movements, something which became very annoying for me after the first few times. I get that this is a story about kids banding together and overcoming evil, but part of me just wishes that Merlin had stayed in his adult form of Patrick Stewart as I really wasn't so keen on the younger version at all.
It's also around this time, for a fairly lengthy period in the middle, that I felt the movie slowed and struggled a little. Thankfully though, things improved considerably for the final act, pulling everything together and delivering a hugely enjoyable finale. As the solar eclipse plunges their school into darkness, an army of armour clad school children battle the flame engulfed skeletal warriors and attempt to defeat the dragon-like Morgana. It's the kind of movie you'd love to watch as a child - no adults, just the kids rising up and overpowering evil. In fact, my daughter enjoyed this a lot more than I did, offering up her own 4.5 rating, so there you go!
I would have liked a little more from the great Patrick Stewart, and Rebecca Ferguson as Morgana isn't quite evil enough for me, but overall this is a really fun family movie and that's largely down to it's young stars, who are all fantastic. As shown in Attack the Block, Joe Cornish has a real skill for blending the ordinary with the fantastical and empowering his young characters with the traits of a hero or a leader.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with the legend of Arthur, or who had it's memory tarnished by Mr Guy Ritchie, it's recapped for us here in a nice little animated sequence right at the start of the movie. It tells how the evil Morgana was banished to the underworld, vowing to return once more when the world is again divided and at its weakest.
We then join Alex (played by Louis Serkis, son of Andy Serkis), a 12 year old schoolboy living with his mother. He's having some trouble with bullies at school, made worse by his attempts to stand up to them as they terrorise his friend Bedders. One night, while fleeing from bullies Lance and Kay, he stumbles into a building site where he discovers a sword set in stone. He manages to pull it free and takes it home in his backpack, where he and Bedders determine that the sword is in fact the legendary Excalibur.
The next day a mysterious new boy joins them at school. Turns out, he is in fact Merlin, taking the form of a younger boy. He informs Alex and Bedders that they must form a team of knights in order to prepare for the imminent return of Morgana and her army of dead soldiers. They have just 4 days, with her arrival taking place during an upcoming solar eclipse. If they cannot stop her, then she will enslave the Earths inhabitants.
Alex believes that his father is key to all of this, and that he is in fact descended from Arthur, so he decides to go on a quest to Tintagel, the last place that he saw his father. Alex leaves a note for his mum - "Gone on quest to save Britain, don’t worry!” and begins 'knighting' Bedders, and eventually bullies Lance and Kay, as only those that have been knighted are able to see and fight the dead soldiers that come at night.
Their journey takes them via coach, through a portal at Stone Henge, and on a trek across the English countryside where they stop to allow Merlin time to provide them with the sword training they need in order to stand any chance of defeating Morgana. Merlin regularly changes his form, switching between young boy, an owl and his true elderly self (played by Patrick Stewart). In the form of a boy, Merlin is a little bit wacky, performing his magic with a series of clicking hand movements, something which became very annoying for me after the first few times. I get that this is a story about kids banding together and overcoming evil, but part of me just wishes that Merlin had stayed in his adult form of Patrick Stewart as I really wasn't so keen on the younger version at all.
It's also around this time, for a fairly lengthy period in the middle, that I felt the movie slowed and struggled a little. Thankfully though, things improved considerably for the final act, pulling everything together and delivering a hugely enjoyable finale. As the solar eclipse plunges their school into darkness, an army of armour clad school children battle the flame engulfed skeletal warriors and attempt to defeat the dragon-like Morgana. It's the kind of movie you'd love to watch as a child - no adults, just the kids rising up and overpowering evil. In fact, my daughter enjoyed this a lot more than I did, offering up her own 4.5 rating, so there you go!
I would have liked a little more from the great Patrick Stewart, and Rebecca Ferguson as Morgana isn't quite evil enough for me, but overall this is a really fun family movie and that's largely down to it's young stars, who are all fantastic. As shown in Attack the Block, Joe Cornish has a real skill for blending the ordinary with the fantastical and empowering his young characters with the traits of a hero or a leader.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Silent cinema is not my strongest subject but one which I have been making a concerted effort to learn about over the past decade, but admittedly at a slow pace. The idea of sitting through a silent film can seem to be chore to a modern audience and to be honest, it can be inconceivable to the vast majority, but these attitudes only serve to deprive us of 30 years of cinema, both in primitive evolution and cinematic excellence.
The notion is that silent movies where almost amateurish is style, a three decade long film school to keep up occupied until the Talkies turned up and “film” as we know it, was born. This is wrong. Film is visual medium, Movies, moving pictures, all of which were accompanied by music by the way, so the term “silent” only really refers to the lack of synchronized sound and dialogue.
ydvjeYet, the core of film is visual. Modern cinema is a about perfecting the mesh of media forms, music, photography, narrative and sound. But without dialogue, silent movies had a challenge on their hands and one which The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, one of the last silent movies of the era, rose to perfectly.
Visually, this could have been made yesterday. A truly timeless blend of artistic and innovative cinematography, fast paced editing and outstanding performances. The Danish director, Carl Theodore Dreyer mastered the close up, naturalistic acting and manages to tell the procedural story of the trial of Joan Of Arc in such a gripping manner that you will forget that there is no spoken dialogue, yet you are literally putting the intertitles in to the mouths of the cast.
Not a single cast member is wasted, with every one pouring their hearts and souls in to the camera in such nuanced ways that it can be left to debate and interpretation as to exactly who is thinking or feeling what as Joan, Maria Falconetti in her third and final film role, steals the screen with her tortured soul and face shown almost entirely in close up.
the-passion-of-joan-of-arc-large-pictureOver acting has given way to strong acting, each shot designed to allow us access to her soul as she, in a plot not to dissimilar from the last hours of Jesus Christ, is torn between torture and certain death of abandoning her faith and spending the rest of her life imprisoned with only bread and water to look forward too.
The script is based on the actually accounts of the future saint’s trial in 1431 but the real events took place over 18 months whilst this either compresses this into one day or takes place on the last one, but the feeling is that this is the one and only trial of Joan so in that sense, theatrical licence has been taken but it hardly matters. The facts are present and the story is harrowing, made more so by an almost perfect production, led by a controversial, almost Kubrickian director, forcing his cast to suffer for their art, yet this version of events is also contested.
joan-of-arc-soundtrackFor everyone out there who believes that Silent movies are just cut to the chase comedies, or overly flamboyant and patronising filler until “real films” are made, this may just serve as wake up call, that films have evolved, but Sound would actually set the industry back in the 1930’s, as the new audio based art form evolved just as movies had up until this point., but Joan Of Arc should help all see that film has always been able to convey anything, from humour to horror; Real of make-believe.
Many believe that this movie is one of the best ever made and I do believe that to be true. An outstanding and forgotten film to all but critics and film buffs, one which everyone should see.
VERSION
The version which I watched was The Criterion Edition of the 1985 restoration of Dreyer’s “Lost” original cut. The music to this film was never deemed to be that important so there are several compositions which have been attached to the film over the years.
The “Lo Duca” cut, which was the a 61 minute version (1951) doing the rounds for years after the original cut was lost in a fire soon after the film’s release, was cut together by Joseph-Marie Lo Duca after discovering a negative in a vault. This version, as well as the “Director’s Cut” are both available on the Blu-ray, whilst it appeared that the 1985 restoration (Director’s Cut) is more widely available on DVD.
The notion is that silent movies where almost amateurish is style, a three decade long film school to keep up occupied until the Talkies turned up and “film” as we know it, was born. This is wrong. Film is visual medium, Movies, moving pictures, all of which were accompanied by music by the way, so the term “silent” only really refers to the lack of synchronized sound and dialogue.
ydvjeYet, the core of film is visual. Modern cinema is a about perfecting the mesh of media forms, music, photography, narrative and sound. But without dialogue, silent movies had a challenge on their hands and one which The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, one of the last silent movies of the era, rose to perfectly.
Visually, this could have been made yesterday. A truly timeless blend of artistic and innovative cinematography, fast paced editing and outstanding performances. The Danish director, Carl Theodore Dreyer mastered the close up, naturalistic acting and manages to tell the procedural story of the trial of Joan Of Arc in such a gripping manner that you will forget that there is no spoken dialogue, yet you are literally putting the intertitles in to the mouths of the cast.
Not a single cast member is wasted, with every one pouring their hearts and souls in to the camera in such nuanced ways that it can be left to debate and interpretation as to exactly who is thinking or feeling what as Joan, Maria Falconetti in her third and final film role, steals the screen with her tortured soul and face shown almost entirely in close up.
the-passion-of-joan-of-arc-large-pictureOver acting has given way to strong acting, each shot designed to allow us access to her soul as she, in a plot not to dissimilar from the last hours of Jesus Christ, is torn between torture and certain death of abandoning her faith and spending the rest of her life imprisoned with only bread and water to look forward too.
The script is based on the actually accounts of the future saint’s trial in 1431 but the real events took place over 18 months whilst this either compresses this into one day or takes place on the last one, but the feeling is that this is the one and only trial of Joan so in that sense, theatrical licence has been taken but it hardly matters. The facts are present and the story is harrowing, made more so by an almost perfect production, led by a controversial, almost Kubrickian director, forcing his cast to suffer for their art, yet this version of events is also contested.
joan-of-arc-soundtrackFor everyone out there who believes that Silent movies are just cut to the chase comedies, or overly flamboyant and patronising filler until “real films” are made, this may just serve as wake up call, that films have evolved, but Sound would actually set the industry back in the 1930’s, as the new audio based art form evolved just as movies had up until this point., but Joan Of Arc should help all see that film has always been able to convey anything, from humour to horror; Real of make-believe.
Many believe that this movie is one of the best ever made and I do believe that to be true. An outstanding and forgotten film to all but critics and film buffs, one which everyone should see.
VERSION
The version which I watched was The Criterion Edition of the 1985 restoration of Dreyer’s “Lost” original cut. The music to this film was never deemed to be that important so there are several compositions which have been attached to the film over the years.
The “Lo Duca” cut, which was the a 61 minute version (1951) doing the rounds for years after the original cut was lost in a fire soon after the film’s release, was cut together by Joseph-Marie Lo Duca after discovering a negative in a vault. This version, as well as the “Director’s Cut” are both available on the Blu-ray, whilst it appeared that the 1985 restoration (Director’s Cut) is more widely available on DVD.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Dead Sagas, Volume I, Part I in Books
Jul 10, 2018
The Dead Sagas: Volume I, Part I by Lee Conley is a dark fantasy novel, a horror saga unlike any other. This is not a book for the weak. This is the book for the bravest, the ones who dare to read it, and the ones who can handle to continue living with what they now know.
Book description:
In a land called Arnar, where brave warriors fight for glory, a great evil comes alive.
The secrets of which the scholars were writing about in the past years, the scary stories that were being told in families throughout the generations are becoming true.
Creatures we thought were dead are now walking through the streets, spreading their disease, killing innocent people, and are about to take over Arnar.
The brave warriors are prepared to die defending their lands, but how can you fight creatures that barely feel pain? Are the warriors strong enough?
My Thoughts:
A story that will leave you breathless until the very end, a story that will push you into anxiety and make you bite your nails. A story that speaks about evil, and good, love, bravery and survival, a book that will sit on your shelf after reading it, and you’ll give it a look once in a while, and say: Ahh.. that was good!
In The Dead Sagas we have the chance to follow the stories of many characters. We will meet scholars and apprentices, we meet warriors and lords, we meet people from the street, doing everything they can to survive, we meet survivors that have seen things and we will meet sailors that are dying.
From chapter to chapter, the story goes from one character to another, and we slowly see the progression of the evil creatures, the spreading pace by pace. While it starts with sailors getting sick and dying afterwards on a ship, it slowly continues to become more and more intense, as we see people literally transforming into dead walkers right after they die, right in front of our eyes.
You will meet Bjorn, who escaped a tribe that cooks and eats people, you will meet Arnulf, who sees unimaginable things will being a lord of the watch. You will see him go through the greatest pain in life, you will see him afraid and brave, you will see him fighting, even though he wants to go and cry in the corner and die.
You will meet a girl that sells her body, so she can buy food for her and her little brother. You will meet a woman warrior, and learn about her amazing and brave story, you will watch how people see their loved ones die right in front of their eyes, and sometimes, they even have to be the ones to kill them in order to survive.
Even though we learn so much about the characters and their stories, it was hard for me to really connect with any of them, as the chapters moved fast from one character to another. This is probably the reason to why I also found the beginning quite slow. It took me around 90 pages, to start realising what is happening.
There will be a lot of violence in this book, a lot of swearing, and scenes that might upset or offend you. This book is not for the weak ones, that is for sure. And while for some of you this might put you off this book, I do have to say that if the book didn’t have a strong language and violent scenes like it does, it wouldn’t have been the same.
The biggest ''flaw'' I had was the ending. I won’t say anything spoiler-ish , as I don’t want to ruin the book for you, but let’s just say that I didn’t expect it to end the way it did.
Even though this is a story about the dead people walking around and killing everything in front of them, this is actually a book about the survivors, the ones that managed to retell this story - the ones that lost anything and everything to be where they are now. This is for the lives of the brave souls, the mighty warriors, that were noble and tried to protect their lands.
A massive thanks to the author, Lee Conley, who managed to find me in the deep waters of Twitter, and who agreed to send me a paperback copy of this book in exchange for my honest opinion.
Book description:
In a land called Arnar, where brave warriors fight for glory, a great evil comes alive.
The secrets of which the scholars were writing about in the past years, the scary stories that were being told in families throughout the generations are becoming true.
Creatures we thought were dead are now walking through the streets, spreading their disease, killing innocent people, and are about to take over Arnar.
The brave warriors are prepared to die defending their lands, but how can you fight creatures that barely feel pain? Are the warriors strong enough?
My Thoughts:
A story that will leave you breathless until the very end, a story that will push you into anxiety and make you bite your nails. A story that speaks about evil, and good, love, bravery and survival, a book that will sit on your shelf after reading it, and you’ll give it a look once in a while, and say: Ahh.. that was good!
In The Dead Sagas we have the chance to follow the stories of many characters. We will meet scholars and apprentices, we meet warriors and lords, we meet people from the street, doing everything they can to survive, we meet survivors that have seen things and we will meet sailors that are dying.
From chapter to chapter, the story goes from one character to another, and we slowly see the progression of the evil creatures, the spreading pace by pace. While it starts with sailors getting sick and dying afterwards on a ship, it slowly continues to become more and more intense, as we see people literally transforming into dead walkers right after they die, right in front of our eyes.
You will meet Bjorn, who escaped a tribe that cooks and eats people, you will meet Arnulf, who sees unimaginable things will being a lord of the watch. You will see him go through the greatest pain in life, you will see him afraid and brave, you will see him fighting, even though he wants to go and cry in the corner and die.
You will meet a girl that sells her body, so she can buy food for her and her little brother. You will meet a woman warrior, and learn about her amazing and brave story, you will watch how people see their loved ones die right in front of their eyes, and sometimes, they even have to be the ones to kill them in order to survive.
Even though we learn so much about the characters and their stories, it was hard for me to really connect with any of them, as the chapters moved fast from one character to another. This is probably the reason to why I also found the beginning quite slow. It took me around 90 pages, to start realising what is happening.
There will be a lot of violence in this book, a lot of swearing, and scenes that might upset or offend you. This book is not for the weak ones, that is for sure. And while for some of you this might put you off this book, I do have to say that if the book didn’t have a strong language and violent scenes like it does, it wouldn’t have been the same.
The biggest ''flaw'' I had was the ending. I won’t say anything spoiler-ish , as I don’t want to ruin the book for you, but let’s just say that I didn’t expect it to end the way it did.
Even though this is a story about the dead people walking around and killing everything in front of them, this is actually a book about the survivors, the ones that managed to retell this story - the ones that lost anything and everything to be where they are now. This is for the lives of the brave souls, the mighty warriors, that were noble and tried to protect their lands.
A massive thanks to the author, Lee Conley, who managed to find me in the deep waters of Twitter, and who agreed to send me a paperback copy of this book in exchange for my honest opinion.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Welcome back to Jumanji
How dare they make a sequel/remake/reboot of Jumanji? I mean that film was a classic. Admittedly a very average classic that doesn’t really live up to your childhood memory of it, but still. And, yeah, Zathura was a kind of remake given it was adapted from a book by the same writer and explored the same themes, but nobody watched that, so how dare they do a new Jumanji film? I mean it’s only 22 years since the original came out!
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Ridley Scott has followed “Prometheus” with the film that eschews the is it or isn’t it a prequel question by firmly establishing its ties to his landmark film “Alien”. The title of the film “Alien Covenant” leaves little doubt as to what franchise this film is connected to and does a very solid job of connecting elements of the franchise without being as nebulous, divisive, and confusing as its predecessor.
The film follows a colony ship named Covenant which is on an extended mission of colonization approximately 7 years away from their destination. A crew of 15 watches over approximately 2000 colonist and frozen embryos as they attempt to build a new life on a distant world. When an unexpected event jeopardizes the ship the crew was revived and forced into action to deal with the unexpected consequences that have arisen. The ship synthetic lifeform named Walter (Michael Fassbender), and crew quickly assess the damage and plot a course to repair the ship and continue on their journey.
During the course of the repairs a garbled transmission is discovered by the ship’s pilot Tennessee “Danny McBride”. What appears to be a human transmission only a relatively short distance away from the ship is too enticing to pass up for Captain Oram (Billy Crudup), even though ship’s officer Daniels (Katherine Waterston), believes that it is simply too good to be true and questions how a planet that seems to meet all of their needs alluded their initial scans. Undaunted, the ship set up to explore the mysterious planet and find a beautiful world that seems to be an ideal fit for colonization. Things take an unexpected change when a dangerous situation arises and before long the crew finds themselves facing an unexpected series of dangers of horrors and unable to evacuate thanks to a violent storm in the area.
They are eventually taken in by the android David (Michael Fassbender), who relays that he has been stranded on planet 10 years following the events of the Prometheus mission. David bonds with his “brother” Walter will the crew try to make sense of the situation as they believe there is much more to the story than they have been told.
When much larger dangers arise the crew must rally to survive against a nightmare situation that has the potential to threaten not only their ship and crew but perhaps all of humanity.
This time out director Ridley Scott has not shied away from giving fans deadly creatures and action that many felt was sadly missing from “Prometheus”. While the film certainly isn’t in the same caliber as “Alien” and “Aliens”, I did find it more enjoyable than the two subsequent films that followed and significantly more enjoyable than “Prometheus”. Yes there are still some nebulous elements to the story that will hopefully be addressed in the subsequent films and one could argue that a good portion of this film was basically a set up for the next film that his planned follow-up. However very strong performances by Fassbender, McBride, and Waterston, as well as the incredible visual effects and highly detailed sets really make this a fun and exciting adventure. While most of the cast does exist is little more than fodder for the various dangers in the film there is effort given to at least give them a little bit of back story and relate ability so you have some sympathy towards their outcome. The mixing of new and familiar creatures bodes very well for the future the franchise and the film was gripping from start to finish and certainly provided plenty of entertainment.
I really love the look of the ship and was intrigued by the potential that the film established as toward the direction of the series. While it does tread on some of the thematic elements of the previous films such as the whole nature of creation and existence, it is not as heavy handed and cerebral and finds a much better balance between horror, action, science fiction, and metaphysical questions.
From a fans perspective this is much more of the film that I was expecting when “Prometheus” was first announced and hopefully this is a very good omen for the direction that future films will follow since the intention has been established of linking the new films to the events of the original movie. If you are fan of the series you will definitely want to check this out as it has been my favorite film of the summer to date and I look forward to seeing it again soon.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/16/alien-covenant/
The film follows a colony ship named Covenant which is on an extended mission of colonization approximately 7 years away from their destination. A crew of 15 watches over approximately 2000 colonist and frozen embryos as they attempt to build a new life on a distant world. When an unexpected event jeopardizes the ship the crew was revived and forced into action to deal with the unexpected consequences that have arisen. The ship synthetic lifeform named Walter (Michael Fassbender), and crew quickly assess the damage and plot a course to repair the ship and continue on their journey.
During the course of the repairs a garbled transmission is discovered by the ship’s pilot Tennessee “Danny McBride”. What appears to be a human transmission only a relatively short distance away from the ship is too enticing to pass up for Captain Oram (Billy Crudup), even though ship’s officer Daniels (Katherine Waterston), believes that it is simply too good to be true and questions how a planet that seems to meet all of their needs alluded their initial scans. Undaunted, the ship set up to explore the mysterious planet and find a beautiful world that seems to be an ideal fit for colonization. Things take an unexpected change when a dangerous situation arises and before long the crew finds themselves facing an unexpected series of dangers of horrors and unable to evacuate thanks to a violent storm in the area.
They are eventually taken in by the android David (Michael Fassbender), who relays that he has been stranded on planet 10 years following the events of the Prometheus mission. David bonds with his “brother” Walter will the crew try to make sense of the situation as they believe there is much more to the story than they have been told.
When much larger dangers arise the crew must rally to survive against a nightmare situation that has the potential to threaten not only their ship and crew but perhaps all of humanity.
This time out director Ridley Scott has not shied away from giving fans deadly creatures and action that many felt was sadly missing from “Prometheus”. While the film certainly isn’t in the same caliber as “Alien” and “Aliens”, I did find it more enjoyable than the two subsequent films that followed and significantly more enjoyable than “Prometheus”. Yes there are still some nebulous elements to the story that will hopefully be addressed in the subsequent films and one could argue that a good portion of this film was basically a set up for the next film that his planned follow-up. However very strong performances by Fassbender, McBride, and Waterston, as well as the incredible visual effects and highly detailed sets really make this a fun and exciting adventure. While most of the cast does exist is little more than fodder for the various dangers in the film there is effort given to at least give them a little bit of back story and relate ability so you have some sympathy towards their outcome. The mixing of new and familiar creatures bodes very well for the future the franchise and the film was gripping from start to finish and certainly provided plenty of entertainment.
I really love the look of the ship and was intrigued by the potential that the film established as toward the direction of the series. While it does tread on some of the thematic elements of the previous films such as the whole nature of creation and existence, it is not as heavy handed and cerebral and finds a much better balance between horror, action, science fiction, and metaphysical questions.
From a fans perspective this is much more of the film that I was expecting when “Prometheus” was first announced and hopefully this is a very good omen for the direction that future films will follow since the intention has been established of linking the new films to the events of the original movie. If you are fan of the series you will definitely want to check this out as it has been my favorite film of the summer to date and I look forward to seeing it again soon.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/16/alien-covenant/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Saw (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the most impressive cinematic debuts in memory has arrived in theaters and showcases a very impressive writer/director team that seem poised for great things based on a very impressive debut.
The film is “Saw” and it is a triumph of suspense, horror, and drama that harkens back to the classic work of David Fincher, and dare I say Hitchcock, as it is a bold and daring film, that is a fresh and creative as it is innovative.
The film is written by and features Leigh Whannell, as Adam, a young man who awakens in a dark room in a bathtub filled with water. Although disoriented, Adam soon discovers he is not alone, as he shares the room with another man, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who like him, is chained at the ankle and trapped in the room.
As bad as this is, there is a dead body in the middle of the room that underscores the peril of the situation. Adam and Lawrence eventually discover audio tapes and a player that indicate that they are being held as they do not appreciate the life that they have and as such, are going to lose it unless they can prove how much they want to live.
Lawrence is told via the taped instructions that if he does not kill Adam by 6:00, then his wife and daughter will be killed and clues are given to indicate where to look in the decrepit room. The fact that Adam and Lawrence are chained and have very limited mobility forces the two of them to work with one another, despite the mistrust Adam has towards Lawrence as he was the one they tape said had to be killed.
Lawrence begins to tell Adam that he thinks he knows who is behind their situation, as there has been a series of murders in the area and he was suspect. Through a series of flashbacks Lawrence informs Adam about the Jigsaw killer, who places victims in perilous situations but provides them with a way out, provided they are willing to take extreme measures to show how much they want to live. The bizarre and gruesome situations lead to the introduction of Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), who is investigating the grizzly trail left by the killer. In many ways, “Saw” become two movies in one as we learn about the history of the crimes, and the investigation leading up to the present situation between Lawrence and Adam. The film also cleverly guises certain events keeping the audience guessing as to if they happened in the past or are occurring in the present adding to the mystery and suspense.
As the story unfolds we learn more about Adam that underscores the tension and allows new avenues for the story to unfold. I will not spoil the twists and turns of the story but suffice it to say, there are plenty of red herrings and plot twists that will keep the audience guessing and some very creative and shocking twists and turns that culminates in an ending that will become one of the most talked about in film history and is destined to carve a niche in horror history.
Director James Wan, who also created the story, has crafted a visually gripping and disturbing film with a very effective pace that shows ability and talent well beyond his years. The film is so masterfully shot and organized that it is hard to believe that this is his first film, as Dramas can often be the downfall of many directors as they are unable to draw tension out of the material.
The screenplay by Whanell is gripping and effective. The characters are defined well within the context of their situations as it is vital to the story that information about the characters is slowly released to the audience in order to create and maintain the tension.
“Saw” is a true wonder as instead of being a simple horror film, it is a deeply complex and disturbing film that showcases two talented individuals in a very impressive debut. The images and story of the film stay with you long after the film ends and like it or love it “Saw” is a well crafted film that is not only disturbing, but refreshingly original. My only issue with the film is that it did drag just a bit while leading up to the finale, but that being said, “Saw” is easily the best horror film in many years.
The film is “Saw” and it is a triumph of suspense, horror, and drama that harkens back to the classic work of David Fincher, and dare I say Hitchcock, as it is a bold and daring film, that is a fresh and creative as it is innovative.
The film is written by and features Leigh Whannell, as Adam, a young man who awakens in a dark room in a bathtub filled with water. Although disoriented, Adam soon discovers he is not alone, as he shares the room with another man, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who like him, is chained at the ankle and trapped in the room.
As bad as this is, there is a dead body in the middle of the room that underscores the peril of the situation. Adam and Lawrence eventually discover audio tapes and a player that indicate that they are being held as they do not appreciate the life that they have and as such, are going to lose it unless they can prove how much they want to live.
Lawrence is told via the taped instructions that if he does not kill Adam by 6:00, then his wife and daughter will be killed and clues are given to indicate where to look in the decrepit room. The fact that Adam and Lawrence are chained and have very limited mobility forces the two of them to work with one another, despite the mistrust Adam has towards Lawrence as he was the one they tape said had to be killed.
Lawrence begins to tell Adam that he thinks he knows who is behind their situation, as there has been a series of murders in the area and he was suspect. Through a series of flashbacks Lawrence informs Adam about the Jigsaw killer, who places victims in perilous situations but provides them with a way out, provided they are willing to take extreme measures to show how much they want to live. The bizarre and gruesome situations lead to the introduction of Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), who is investigating the grizzly trail left by the killer. In many ways, “Saw” become two movies in one as we learn about the history of the crimes, and the investigation leading up to the present situation between Lawrence and Adam. The film also cleverly guises certain events keeping the audience guessing as to if they happened in the past or are occurring in the present adding to the mystery and suspense.
As the story unfolds we learn more about Adam that underscores the tension and allows new avenues for the story to unfold. I will not spoil the twists and turns of the story but suffice it to say, there are plenty of red herrings and plot twists that will keep the audience guessing and some very creative and shocking twists and turns that culminates in an ending that will become one of the most talked about in film history and is destined to carve a niche in horror history.
Director James Wan, who also created the story, has crafted a visually gripping and disturbing film with a very effective pace that shows ability and talent well beyond his years. The film is so masterfully shot and organized that it is hard to believe that this is his first film, as Dramas can often be the downfall of many directors as they are unable to draw tension out of the material.
The screenplay by Whanell is gripping and effective. The characters are defined well within the context of their situations as it is vital to the story that information about the characters is slowly released to the audience in order to create and maintain the tension.
“Saw” is a true wonder as instead of being a simple horror film, it is a deeply complex and disturbing film that showcases two talented individuals in a very impressive debut. The images and story of the film stay with you long after the film ends and like it or love it “Saw” is a well crafted film that is not only disturbing, but refreshingly original. My only issue with the film is that it did drag just a bit while leading up to the finale, but that being said, “Saw” is easily the best horror film in many years.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Awaken (Awakened Fate #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Awaken is the first book in the Awakened Fate series by Skye Malone, and I'm pretty familiar with her other series as Megan Joel Peterson (The Children and the Blood trilogy) that I was confident her latest book will go into my good graces pretty easily. Thing is, Awaken reminded me so much of The Little Mermaid, I can't help but have the urge to sing "Under the Sea" and ask one question:
<b>"Sebastian, Sebastian, where art thou?"</b>
I had also associated funny brow movements with the author in particular. As in, brows drawing down, which I still don't know how that works without your brows looking like a seesaw or ending up with a pouting pucker fish face.
But back to The Little Mermaid similarities... and not brow movements.
Chloe has red hair, or as the book describes, auburn. But auburn's technically red with a tinge of brown. Ariel has red hair. The difference? Chloe doesn't know how to swim, and has been living on land her entire life. Then there's Zeke, which I sort of predicted him to have dark hair, and he does! Just like the princey dude for whom I've forgotten the name. In fact, said unknown princeling stalks Ariel, and so does Zeke... due to curiosity on who the pretty girl is. It's not revealed in Awaken, but I won't be surprised if Zeke is a prince.
<blockquote>Despite the fact we were barely any distance from the shore, the temperature had dropped to levels ordinarily found in places even deeper than Nyciena, with darkness to match.</blockquote>
Every book has got to have an Ursula of some sort. And she just oozes darkness, doesn't she? Too bad the Ursulas here aren't Octopuses. ;)
<blockquote>The girl changed the ocean when she was near it – a statement that on any level should have been impossible.</blockquote>
Okay, here's Sophia Lin logic: See, Ariel has a curse. I was sort of assuming Chloe willingly turned into a human just like Ariel, but she doesn't lose her voice, right? Except, here's the curse: she changes the ocean... and it's not exactly a pleasant way. Technically, that logic isn't going to get you far, because it isn't true, and I can't reveal the actual answer without spoiling anything. Nor do I want to reveal anything, because answers are spoilers, and not everyone can be trusted with the trusty little spoiler button. ;)
Then there are the differences, which pretty much revamps The Little Mermaid. Enough commentary on Little Mermaid.
Awaken follows two views – Chloe and Zeke. The best part of those two views though? They balance each other out pretty well. Chloe doesn't really know anything about what she is, so we're basically following a naïve character for most of the story who has strange things happening to her and strange peeps with glowing eyes wanting to murder the likes of her. Very boring in my opinion, because she doesn't know what's going on and it's all confusing and she's stuck in the hospital every once in awhile from an unfortunate encounter with said strange flowing peepy eyes. Zeke balances her out because he pretty much knows what's going on from his observations – but he doesn't really know what Chloe is until the end either.
Let's just say that balance is a good thing. Because I just can't handle an utterly boring character, and I'm sure not everyone likes that either. But if there's one thing Chloe has that makes her an interesting character, it's her voice and her frustration on why her parents hate the ocean with a passion and come up with logical, but weird excuses for them.
The only problem I probably have is how some of the terms don't appear in the pronunciation guide, and how the long ones are confusing. Maybe my head just needs to wrap around them after reading Irish terms from the second book in the Danaan Trilogy. O_o
Awaken is a good start to the Awakened Fate series, and while we spend most of the time above the surface, it's hinted that the sequel will most likely be focused underwater. It's a quick read for those who enjoy reading stories related to <s>merps</s> merpeople.
------------------
original rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-awaken-by-skye-malone.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
<b>"Sebastian, Sebastian, where art thou?"</b>
I had also associated funny brow movements with the author in particular. As in, brows drawing down, which I still don't know how that works without your brows looking like a seesaw or ending up with a pouting pucker fish face.
But back to The Little Mermaid similarities... and not brow movements.
Chloe has red hair, or as the book describes, auburn. But auburn's technically red with a tinge of brown. Ariel has red hair. The difference? Chloe doesn't know how to swim, and has been living on land her entire life. Then there's Zeke, which I sort of predicted him to have dark hair, and he does! Just like the princey dude for whom I've forgotten the name. In fact, said unknown princeling stalks Ariel, and so does Zeke... due to curiosity on who the pretty girl is. It's not revealed in Awaken, but I won't be surprised if Zeke is a prince.
<blockquote>Despite the fact we were barely any distance from the shore, the temperature had dropped to levels ordinarily found in places even deeper than Nyciena, with darkness to match.</blockquote>
Every book has got to have an Ursula of some sort. And she just oozes darkness, doesn't she? Too bad the Ursulas here aren't Octopuses. ;)
<blockquote>The girl changed the ocean when she was near it – a statement that on any level should have been impossible.</blockquote>
Okay, here's Sophia Lin logic: See, Ariel has a curse. I was sort of assuming Chloe willingly turned into a human just like Ariel, but she doesn't lose her voice, right? Except, here's the curse: she changes the ocean... and it's not exactly a pleasant way. Technically, that logic isn't going to get you far, because it isn't true, and I can't reveal the actual answer without spoiling anything. Nor do I want to reveal anything, because answers are spoilers, and not everyone can be trusted with the trusty little spoiler button. ;)
Then there are the differences, which pretty much revamps The Little Mermaid. Enough commentary on Little Mermaid.
Awaken follows two views – Chloe and Zeke. The best part of those two views though? They balance each other out pretty well. Chloe doesn't really know anything about what she is, so we're basically following a naïve character for most of the story who has strange things happening to her and strange peeps with glowing eyes wanting to murder the likes of her. Very boring in my opinion, because she doesn't know what's going on and it's all confusing and she's stuck in the hospital every once in awhile from an unfortunate encounter with said strange flowing peepy eyes. Zeke balances her out because he pretty much knows what's going on from his observations – but he doesn't really know what Chloe is until the end either.
Let's just say that balance is a good thing. Because I just can't handle an utterly boring character, and I'm sure not everyone likes that either. But if there's one thing Chloe has that makes her an interesting character, it's her voice and her frustration on why her parents hate the ocean with a passion and come up with logical, but weird excuses for them.
The only problem I probably have is how some of the terms don't appear in the pronunciation guide, and how the long ones are confusing. Maybe my head just needs to wrap around them after reading Irish terms from the second book in the Danaan Trilogy. O_o
Awaken is a good start to the Awakened Fate series, and while we spend most of the time above the surface, it's hinted that the sequel will most likely be focused underwater. It's a quick read for those who enjoy reading stories related to <s>merps</s> merpeople.
------------------
original rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-awaken-by-skye-malone.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>