Search
Search results
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?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
Gentle, slow-paced and full of HEART
The new "Mr. Rogers" movie, A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is gentle, warm, slow, kind and heartfelt - just the type of film that is antithetical to how life is bounding past all of us on a daily basis. It would be well worth your time to slow down, turn off the electronics, and take in this wonderfully loving film.
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Shatter Me in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Shatter Me is one of those books that will stick with me forever. I may even re-read it just because I enjoyed it so much! I mean, I never re-read books! But I may very well re-read this one! It's one that I can pick up the next one after not having read it for a year, and I can jump right back in because I remember it all. I can't wait until the next book comes out! Oh my gosh! Why on earth did I wait so long to read it? Oh yeah. College.
The writing was magnificent (man has it been a long time since I've been able to say that). It was interesting, and different, and felt like a free flowing train of thought instead of conscious sentences or pages from a diary. It was beautiful and poetic, and full of metaphors about nature and beauty and pain that were so honest and true that I couldn't figure out why I hadn't thought them up myself first. Sometimes there would be a phrase that Juliette thought to herself that was true but she refused to admit to thinking, and it would be crossed out. (like that ^). I really liked this, because it showed what she was really thinking, but it also showed what kind of person she wanted to be.
The plot was fantastic. It never stopped moving forward. There were brief times of rest in the thriller aspect of the story, but the tension itself never went away, and there were no dead plot fillers thrown in.
I really liked Juliette. She wants to be strong, but after a long life of being emotionally abused, she's a weak broken pitiful creature who just wants to be loved and nurtured back to health. She will do anything to be on good terms with someone she loves. She's dying to be touched, but she knows she can't be because she'll kill whoever touches her. And she doesn't want to hurt anyone. She wants to help people and comfort them, but she knows she'll kill them. What a horrible place to be in!
I won't say too much about her love interest, Adam, but I will say he is so going on my list of favorite literary crushes. He is hott stuff. And because of that, I'm going to put my recommendation as ages 16+. If you can't read Hush Hush or Hourglass, I'd hold off on this one for a while…
Content/recommendation: Some hot kissing scenes, and I'm seeing a potential for more in the later books. Ages 16+
The writing was magnificent (man has it been a long time since I've been able to say that). It was interesting, and different, and felt like a free flowing train of thought instead of conscious sentences or pages from a diary. It was beautiful and poetic, and full of metaphors about nature and beauty and pain that were so honest and true that I couldn't figure out why I hadn't thought them up myself first. Sometimes there would be a phrase that Juliette thought to herself that was true but she refused to admit to thinking, and it would be crossed out. (like that ^). I really liked this, because it showed what she was really thinking, but it also showed what kind of person she wanted to be.
The plot was fantastic. It never stopped moving forward. There were brief times of rest in the thriller aspect of the story, but the tension itself never went away, and there were no dead plot fillers thrown in.
I really liked Juliette. She wants to be strong, but after a long life of being emotionally abused, she's a weak broken pitiful creature who just wants to be loved and nurtured back to health. She will do anything to be on good terms with someone she loves. She's dying to be touched, but she knows she can't be because she'll kill whoever touches her. And she doesn't want to hurt anyone. She wants to help people and comfort them, but she knows she'll kill them. What a horrible place to be in!
I won't say too much about her love interest, Adam, but I will say he is so going on my list of favorite literary crushes. He is hott stuff. And because of that, I'm going to put my recommendation as ages 16+. If you can't read Hush Hush or Hourglass, I'd hold off on this one for a while…
Content/recommendation: Some hot kissing scenes, and I'm seeing a potential for more in the later books. Ages 16+
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Dear Thing in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Claire and Ben have a seemingly ideal life - good jobs, a beautiful house, and what seems to be a strong relationship. But they've been trying to have a baby for years, and it's starting to take a toll on them and their marriage. After yet another failed round of IVF, Claire is done. She cannot put her body (and her heart) through this pain yet again. Ben is upset and not ready to give up. So when his best friend, Romily, drunkenly offers to act as a surrogate for the couple, Ben jumps on it! Why not? Romily -- already a single mom to Posie -- seems like the perfect choice, after all. And Romily does want to give Ben and Claire the baby they so desire. But if she really admits it, she really wants to give *Ben* this baby: Ben, whom Romily has secretly loved since university. Will Romily really be able to give up this baby? And, can she give up Ben?
This was a lovely and fascinating book, which I devoured in the span of about 24 hours. It's an extremely quick read with well-drawn characters who immediately pull you into the story. Having struggled with infertility myself, I certainly identified with Claire, but also found pieces of Romily and Ben to love as well. One of the strengths of Cohen's book is that there is no one true "winner" here - you don't go in and immediately find yourself rooting for one of the women and their "side," which I think benefits the entire book and its storyline.
Some of the plot is almost a little too unbelievable (and sometimes I'd like to swat clueless Ben in the head), but most of it is made up for by the realism of the characters and their emotions. Claire, especially, in her fertility struggle, is true to form, as is Romily, as she struggles with her feelings for Ben. Romily's young daughter Posie is a wonderful character - you will immediately fall for spirited, sweet Posie.
To me, the only weakness of this book was the ending, which seemed a little to pat and simplified for all the complicated emotions the characters had been struggling with throughout. That's the only thing preventing a 4-star rating. Still, a solid 3.5 read and, really, a lovely and worthwhile book. It gets you out of your head for a bit.
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available for U.S. publication on 3/29. You can check out a review of this novel and many others on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
This was a lovely and fascinating book, which I devoured in the span of about 24 hours. It's an extremely quick read with well-drawn characters who immediately pull you into the story. Having struggled with infertility myself, I certainly identified with Claire, but also found pieces of Romily and Ben to love as well. One of the strengths of Cohen's book is that there is no one true "winner" here - you don't go in and immediately find yourself rooting for one of the women and their "side," which I think benefits the entire book and its storyline.
Some of the plot is almost a little too unbelievable (and sometimes I'd like to swat clueless Ben in the head), but most of it is made up for by the realism of the characters and their emotions. Claire, especially, in her fertility struggle, is true to form, as is Romily, as she struggles with her feelings for Ben. Romily's young daughter Posie is a wonderful character - you will immediately fall for spirited, sweet Posie.
To me, the only weakness of this book was the ending, which seemed a little to pat and simplified for all the complicated emotions the characters had been struggling with throughout. That's the only thing preventing a 4-star rating. Still, a solid 3.5 read and, really, a lovely and worthwhile book. It gets you out of your head for a bit.
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available for U.S. publication on 3/29. You can check out a review of this novel and many others on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Sarah (126 KP) rated The Staircase in TV
Aug 10, 2018
A Compelling Watch
All are punish'd.
The final words of The Staircase, taken from the last scene of Romeo & Juliet, seem particularly fitting for the series.
This series is centred on the untimely death of Kathleen Peterson, wife of author Michael Peterson.
For fans of true crime documentaries such as Making a Murderer, Evil Genius and Wild, Wild Country, this may seem something of a "slow burn"; however, from the initial report of Kathleen apparently tumbling down the stairs, we are quickly taken on a journey which spans several decades, two continents and which reveals lies and betrayal the likes of which seem more fitting of a crime thriller novel than a real life crime drama.
As with pretty much of these true crime series', we are left with a lot of unanswered questions; what makes The Staircase different is that it actually takes from the initial 911 call right up to the closure of the case.
What this start to finish coverage of the matter does give is a stark indication of the sheer length of time (and amount of money) that justice can take - if, indeed, one considers that justice was in fact served in this matter - and the toll that can take.
The level of coverage - of coaching of the witness pre-Trial, interviews with the Judge following the conclusion, and pretty much everything in between - allows us great insight into the US judicial process, as well as a close look at the Defendant himself and his family.
While each and every viewer will undoubtedly form their own opinion as to the guilt or otherwise of Michael Peterson - even though we aren't privy to all of the evidence, investigations, etc of the prosecution team - this series is certainly serves as an insight into the criminal justice process in the United States and how it can affect entire families.
My only criticism would be that the last few episodes seem to have been really dragged out - including lots of long, lingering shots of Michael Peterson, perhaps to reinforce how he had aged and suffered over the course of the series. In my opinion, it really could have been reduced by several episodes which would have actually made the whole thing flow better.
As regards guilt, one line towards the end of the series really stood out to as being the most honest thing said by anyone: "is there ever anyone in this family who isn't performing?"
The final words of The Staircase, taken from the last scene of Romeo & Juliet, seem particularly fitting for the series.
This series is centred on the untimely death of Kathleen Peterson, wife of author Michael Peterson.
For fans of true crime documentaries such as Making a Murderer, Evil Genius and Wild, Wild Country, this may seem something of a "slow burn"; however, from the initial report of Kathleen apparently tumbling down the stairs, we are quickly taken on a journey which spans several decades, two continents and which reveals lies and betrayal the likes of which seem more fitting of a crime thriller novel than a real life crime drama.
As with pretty much of these true crime series', we are left with a lot of unanswered questions; what makes The Staircase different is that it actually takes from the initial 911 call right up to the closure of the case.
What this start to finish coverage of the matter does give is a stark indication of the sheer length of time (and amount of money) that justice can take - if, indeed, one considers that justice was in fact served in this matter - and the toll that can take.
The level of coverage - of coaching of the witness pre-Trial, interviews with the Judge following the conclusion, and pretty much everything in between - allows us great insight into the US judicial process, as well as a close look at the Defendant himself and his family.
While each and every viewer will undoubtedly form their own opinion as to the guilt or otherwise of Michael Peterson - even though we aren't privy to all of the evidence, investigations, etc of the prosecution team - this series is certainly serves as an insight into the criminal justice process in the United States and how it can affect entire families.
My only criticism would be that the last few episodes seem to have been really dragged out - including lots of long, lingering shots of Michael Peterson, perhaps to reinforce how he had aged and suffered over the course of the series. In my opinion, it really could have been reduced by several episodes which would have actually made the whole thing flow better.
As regards guilt, one line towards the end of the series really stood out to as being the most honest thing said by anyone: "is there ever anyone in this family who isn't performing?"
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated A Highlander Walks Into a Bar in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Isabel and Rose Buchanan are mother and daughter who live on a lovely Scottish estate in Highland, GA. Every year, they are in charge of a festival highlighting their Scottish heritage. Izzy as she is called by her friends is surprised when she picks her mom up from the airport and she is not alone. Gareth Connors in all of the Scottish glory is with her and Izzy has quite a few mixed emotions about this arrangement. To top that off, a few days later a friend of Gareth's invades their space as well, Alasdair. Izzy is very wary of these two. What are their intentions? Will she and her mother make it through the festival without any issues?
Thank you to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
I was really excited to read this book when I first received it. I have been reading a lot of really steamy romance this summer and I was sure this one was going to be the same. Overall, I enjoyed the book, but it left me a bit confused by the language used. The book is set in the South in the US, with ties back to Scotland, but a lot of the wording made me believe that this book was written by a British author. I am also reading an Advanced Copy, so maybe some of that wording will be changed in the final copy.
All the characters in this book are ones I can see myself hanging out with. Izzy is a clumsy woman who is just trying to figure out the life she's living. Whether it brings her joy or if there is something else she can be doing to be happy. Living with her mother and taking care of their home, and being in charge of the festival are all noble deeds, but are they making her happy. When Izzy meets Alasdair, at first she isn't sure how to feel about him. Yes, he is attractive with a deep Scottish accent, but she isn't sure of his true intentions. The same is true of Gareth, although most of her feelings toward him seem to stem from not seeing her mother with anyone else besides her father.
Both of the Buchanan women need some change in their lives. Will these Scottish men be the ones to bring it to them or will they both be left heartbroken?
The book leaves you knowing there is going to be more to this story and I'm interested to find out what is going to happen next.
Thank you to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
I was really excited to read this book when I first received it. I have been reading a lot of really steamy romance this summer and I was sure this one was going to be the same. Overall, I enjoyed the book, but it left me a bit confused by the language used. The book is set in the South in the US, with ties back to Scotland, but a lot of the wording made me believe that this book was written by a British author. I am also reading an Advanced Copy, so maybe some of that wording will be changed in the final copy.
All the characters in this book are ones I can see myself hanging out with. Izzy is a clumsy woman who is just trying to figure out the life she's living. Whether it brings her joy or if there is something else she can be doing to be happy. Living with her mother and taking care of their home, and being in charge of the festival are all noble deeds, but are they making her happy. When Izzy meets Alasdair, at first she isn't sure how to feel about him. Yes, he is attractive with a deep Scottish accent, but she isn't sure of his true intentions. The same is true of Gareth, although most of her feelings toward him seem to stem from not seeing her mother with anyone else besides her father.
Both of the Buchanan women need some change in their lives. Will these Scottish men be the ones to bring it to them or will they both be left heartbroken?
The book leaves you knowing there is going to be more to this story and I'm interested to find out what is going to happen next.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rock the Kasbah (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Music is a language that transcends race, gender, age, and nationality. It is timeless. It is transformative. Music has the power to shape and redefine culture. In Rock the Kasbah, Bill Murray plays Richie Lanz, a washed up Rock manager who seeks to bring one of his acts to Afghanistan as part of the USO tour. Within the first day of arrival, his plans are unraveled as his singer (Zooey Deschanel) panics and runs off with his money and passport in order to return back to America.
After meeting a myriad of characters (Bruce Willis, Kate Hudson. Danny McBride) in Kabul, he is presented with a new opportunity to introduce the world to a true talent. He discovers a young Pashtun girl with an amazing voice who dreams of being able to compete on “Afghan Star,” a musical competition show similar to “American Idol.” Cultural norms forbid her from singing and participating in the competition which demonstrate the complexity of Afghan culture, history, and politics. Understanding the threat to himself and Salima (Leem Lubany), Richie arranges for her to appear on the show, defying traditions and customs.
The film itself is a decent adaptation of the real story captured in the documentary Afghan Star which examines the life of Setara who must go into hiding because of her appearance in the competition. Rock the Kasbah has moments of genuine humor which fully utilizes Bill Murray’s true talents. Unfortunately, there are points where the plot and the storyline does not seem to fit together seamlessly. One great aspect of the film is its use of music to demonstrate the reach that it has across cultural lines. The love of music and artistic expression which had been severely restricted during the years of Taliban rule and Mujahedeen influence survived and is emblematic of how the people and the culture is much more complex and relatable than many would assume. This film goes beyond a story of a young singer trying to express herself and a manager trying to reclaim the glory of years ago. It is about the culture, history, and political framework of Afghanistan and the Afghan people.
It promotes them in a more positive light without relegating them to being a monolithic culture and people. It provides more insight into the circumstances that many of the people both in the cities and the tribal regions deal with. Audiences will be satisfied Rock the Kasbah as it is a musical and comedic showcase. They may even find themselves singing “Wild World” long after the credits roll.
After meeting a myriad of characters (Bruce Willis, Kate Hudson. Danny McBride) in Kabul, he is presented with a new opportunity to introduce the world to a true talent. He discovers a young Pashtun girl with an amazing voice who dreams of being able to compete on “Afghan Star,” a musical competition show similar to “American Idol.” Cultural norms forbid her from singing and participating in the competition which demonstrate the complexity of Afghan culture, history, and politics. Understanding the threat to himself and Salima (Leem Lubany), Richie arranges for her to appear on the show, defying traditions and customs.
The film itself is a decent adaptation of the real story captured in the documentary Afghan Star which examines the life of Setara who must go into hiding because of her appearance in the competition. Rock the Kasbah has moments of genuine humor which fully utilizes Bill Murray’s true talents. Unfortunately, there are points where the plot and the storyline does not seem to fit together seamlessly. One great aspect of the film is its use of music to demonstrate the reach that it has across cultural lines. The love of music and artistic expression which had been severely restricted during the years of Taliban rule and Mujahedeen influence survived and is emblematic of how the people and the culture is much more complex and relatable than many would assume. This film goes beyond a story of a young singer trying to express herself and a manager trying to reclaim the glory of years ago. It is about the culture, history, and political framework of Afghanistan and the Afghan people.
It promotes them in a more positive light without relegating them to being a monolithic culture and people. It provides more insight into the circumstances that many of the people both in the cities and the tribal regions deal with. Audiences will be satisfied Rock the Kasbah as it is a musical and comedic showcase. They may even find themselves singing “Wild World” long after the credits roll.
An Englishman Aboard: Discovering France in a Rowing Boat
Book
From the author of Pardon My French and A Certain Je Ne Sais Quoi, this is the charming and...