Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Machine Gun Preacher (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Machine Gun Preacher” stars Gerard Butler, Michelle Monaghan, Kathy Baker, Michael Shannon, Madeline Carrol, and is directed by Marc Foster (previously directed “The Kite Runner” , “Quantum Of Solace” , “Monsters Ball” , and “Finding Neverland”).
The movie follows the true life story of Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) a former biker gang member/drug dealer who, at a major crossroads in his life, experiences a spirtial awakening and becomes a devoted preacher and family man. One day, after hearing another preacher speak about the plight of the thousands of kidnapped and orphaned children in africa as the result of civil war, Childers makes the life changing decision to go to Africa and assist in the building and repair of homes and ‘safe zones’ for refugees that have been damaged or destroyed by the chaos engulfing the countries of Sudan and Uganda. However, upon seeing the destruction and widespread horror inflicted upon the people (in particular the children) Childers decides he cannot stand idly by and do nothing to help.
Ignoring the warnings of overwhlemed peacekeepers and aid workers in the area, Sam decides to construct an orhanage where he thinks it’s needed the most – right in the center of the most volitile area in the Sudan, which also happens to be controlled by the brutal and ultra-violent LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army). The LRA roam from village to village kidnapping children and forcing them to become soliders for the LRA or even worse. In the beginning, Childers meets with success finding as many orphaned children as he can and ferrying them to his orphanage where they find food, shelter, and medical aid. But it is not enough. After several attacks and ambushes, Childers decides he cannot let the LRA continue to sadistically destroy lives. Sam begins to lead missions deep into LRA territory, taking the fight to the enemy while struggling with the knowledge that the situation grows darker every day for the people he is trying to help – in the Sudan and for his family back home.
This movie is definately intense and NOT for the faint of heart. I have not had the chance to read Sam Childers book which the movie is supposedly based on. As far as redemption tales go, this as realistic as it gets, in the sense that sometimes in order to find the salvation or spiritual awakening you seek, you’re forced to sacrifice all and risk losing everything you hold dear in this life in order to find it. Even with the knowledge that once you arrive at the end of that journey, you may not find the awakening you so desperately fought for.
The performances in this movie were all excellent. Kudos to Gerard Butler and Michelle Monaghan in particular. The young actors who portrayed the orphans and child soldiers definately knocked it out of the park as well. Butler also produced the movie which lends more credence to the whole theory that if one of the lead actors has a hand in the behind-the-scences work of the movie, chances are it’ll be a movie worth seein’. I’d encourage you to go see it regardless of the time of day in theaters or grab it on DVD. Rated R for extreme violence throughout and some sexual content.
The movie follows the true life story of Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) a former biker gang member/drug dealer who, at a major crossroads in his life, experiences a spirtial awakening and becomes a devoted preacher and family man. One day, after hearing another preacher speak about the plight of the thousands of kidnapped and orphaned children in africa as the result of civil war, Childers makes the life changing decision to go to Africa and assist in the building and repair of homes and ‘safe zones’ for refugees that have been damaged or destroyed by the chaos engulfing the countries of Sudan and Uganda. However, upon seeing the destruction and widespread horror inflicted upon the people (in particular the children) Childers decides he cannot stand idly by and do nothing to help.
Ignoring the warnings of overwhlemed peacekeepers and aid workers in the area, Sam decides to construct an orhanage where he thinks it’s needed the most – right in the center of the most volitile area in the Sudan, which also happens to be controlled by the brutal and ultra-violent LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army). The LRA roam from village to village kidnapping children and forcing them to become soliders for the LRA or even worse. In the beginning, Childers meets with success finding as many orphaned children as he can and ferrying them to his orphanage where they find food, shelter, and medical aid. But it is not enough. After several attacks and ambushes, Childers decides he cannot let the LRA continue to sadistically destroy lives. Sam begins to lead missions deep into LRA territory, taking the fight to the enemy while struggling with the knowledge that the situation grows darker every day for the people he is trying to help – in the Sudan and for his family back home.
This movie is definately intense and NOT for the faint of heart. I have not had the chance to read Sam Childers book which the movie is supposedly based on. As far as redemption tales go, this as realistic as it gets, in the sense that sometimes in order to find the salvation or spiritual awakening you seek, you’re forced to sacrifice all and risk losing everything you hold dear in this life in order to find it. Even with the knowledge that once you arrive at the end of that journey, you may not find the awakening you so desperately fought for.
The performances in this movie were all excellent. Kudos to Gerard Butler and Michelle Monaghan in particular. The young actors who portrayed the orphans and child soldiers definately knocked it out of the park as well. Butler also produced the movie which lends more credence to the whole theory that if one of the lead actors has a hand in the behind-the-scences work of the movie, chances are it’ll be a movie worth seein’. I’d encourage you to go see it regardless of the time of day in theaters or grab it on DVD. Rated R for extreme violence throughout and some sexual content.
The Richest Man In Babylon Audiobook App by George Samuel Clason
Book and Lifestyle
App
Groundbreaking Audiobook summary App puts your learning of George Samuel Clason-Success Principles...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cherry (2021) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
Tom Holland and Joe and Anthony Russo have teamed up again but this time on a project which is about as far away from the Marvel universe as possible. Based on the book Nico Walker; “Cherry” is a compelling tale told in segments that depict a different style and phase of the main character’s life.
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Move in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I am very excited to be part of the Blog Tour for The Move by Felicity Everett. Especially on New Year’s Day, finishing the year with a blog tour. Thank you to the team at HQ, for sending me an advance readers copy in exchange for an honest review.
Karen moves into a new home with her husband Nick. It is a new house and a fresh start. But it is still the same husband.
I do love myself a bit of family thriller and drama novels. The Move seemed like the perfect choice to get myself cosy, right before saying goodbye to the old year and entering the “new year – new me” attitude. And in the end, it does have this vibe, as our main female protagonist finds her true self and starts making the right choices in her life.
However, this book was not as exciting as I expected it to be.
There is a woman that is going through a hard time and a mental health recovery, judging by her memories and thoughts. Her husband had an affair and she didn’t handle that well at all. But now, it seems that she is well. Her husband got them a new home, with new neighbors, in the idyllic little village, where she can do the things she loves the most.
But her neighbors are not the best kind of type – they all seem weird. And her husband is not really listening to her when she speaks. Her child Ethan is here and there, the relationship shattered by the actions of his father.
And we spend the whole book standing by Karen’s side, watching all the dull things she is doing in the house, talking to her neighbors and being depressed and constantly worrying about everything.
I felt bad for Karen, because she is still going through a mental breakdown, even though really trying to figure out her life. She is really trying, but her husband, friends and neighbors are slowly pushing her down again. The Move has a very big voice on mental health. How important it is that we have our support network next to us, and I am glad that Karen finds Cath in all that mess of a life. Also, how important it is to trust your own guts. When all your friends keep telling you your marriage is perfect and you are so lucky, only because it looks so from the outside, you shouldn’t always believe them. Don’t ever ignore the little things. And don’t ever stay with a man that doesn’t believe in you.
As far as the book goes though, it was quite monotonous and uninteresting. No major plot twists, no big cliff-hanger. I was reading the whole time, waiting for the big moment to come, and it never did.
And in the end, even though we clearly know what choice Karen makes for her life, we don’t have a conclusive ending. We have one of those endings that sort of finishes and lets the reader figure out what happens next. I am not a fan of those, and it might be why I am slightly disappointed in how it all wrapped up.
I would still recommend it if you love family dramas and thrillers. However, if you are expecting for a book that will keep you on the edge, I am afraid you need to still keep looking.
Karen moves into a new home with her husband Nick. It is a new house and a fresh start. But it is still the same husband.
I do love myself a bit of family thriller and drama novels. The Move seemed like the perfect choice to get myself cosy, right before saying goodbye to the old year and entering the “new year – new me” attitude. And in the end, it does have this vibe, as our main female protagonist finds her true self and starts making the right choices in her life.
However, this book was not as exciting as I expected it to be.
There is a woman that is going through a hard time and a mental health recovery, judging by her memories and thoughts. Her husband had an affair and she didn’t handle that well at all. But now, it seems that she is well. Her husband got them a new home, with new neighbors, in the idyllic little village, where she can do the things she loves the most.
But her neighbors are not the best kind of type – they all seem weird. And her husband is not really listening to her when she speaks. Her child Ethan is here and there, the relationship shattered by the actions of his father.
And we spend the whole book standing by Karen’s side, watching all the dull things she is doing in the house, talking to her neighbors and being depressed and constantly worrying about everything.
I felt bad for Karen, because she is still going through a mental breakdown, even though really trying to figure out her life. She is really trying, but her husband, friends and neighbors are slowly pushing her down again. The Move has a very big voice on mental health. How important it is that we have our support network next to us, and I am glad that Karen finds Cath in all that mess of a life. Also, how important it is to trust your own guts. When all your friends keep telling you your marriage is perfect and you are so lucky, only because it looks so from the outside, you shouldn’t always believe them. Don’t ever ignore the little things. And don’t ever stay with a man that doesn’t believe in you.
As far as the book goes though, it was quite monotonous and uninteresting. No major plot twists, no big cliff-hanger. I was reading the whole time, waiting for the big moment to come, and it never did.
And in the end, even though we clearly know what choice Karen makes for her life, we don’t have a conclusive ending. We have one of those endings that sort of finishes and lets the reader figure out what happens next. I am not a fan of those, and it might be why I am slightly disappointed in how it all wrapped up.
I would still recommend it if you love family dramas and thrillers. However, if you are expecting for a book that will keep you on the edge, I am afraid you need to still keep looking.
Never Look at the Empty Seats: A Memoir
Book
A tale of hard work, musical discovery, and faith, Charlie Daniels’s journey has been one of a...
Music biography
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Attachments in Books
Nov 16, 2017
Unconventional Romance (3 more)
Read Life Issues
Movie/Book References
Friendships
Love at First...E-mail?
I've seen some low scored reviews for this book on GR and I realized it may keep some people from reading it, but here are some points I think some should consider before not giving Attachments a chance:
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?