Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1300 KP) rated Lionhearts: Part Two Box Set in Books
Mar 21, 2019
nice easy reads.
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of these books.
Into The Arena
Cesare has been banished from his pride after his uncle cheated in a leadership fight. Finding work on a food truck headed from a for set seemed too good to be true. Finding Hayden as the star AND his fated mate, made Cesare think that maybe he wasn't supposed to win the fight at all. But Hayden has a stalker, and things turn deadly. Can Cesare keep his human mate safe, and will Hayden accept Cesare's lion half?
This is book 4 in the Lionhearts series and I have not read the other books. I did not feel I was missing anything, and so will say these are stand alones, with interconnecting characters, rather than a follow on series.
I liked this one. It did not blow me away, but right now, personally, this was JUST what I needed to read.
It's well told, with both Cesare and Hayden having a say. There is enough history for each of them, but not enough to be overwhelming in a short book. Well, I say SHORT, but it's still 176 pages! Didn't feel like it though!
I loved that we got some of the stalker too! They have their say in a couple of places, and I do love getting into the mind of the baddie! Did NOT see who that might have been, or rather, I had an idea, but was way off base.
It's quite sexy. There is a scene with Hayden getting down and dirty with his boyfriend BEFORE he and Cesare meet. Then Hayden and Cesare get down to it really quickly after meeting! Not sure how I feel about the first, but loved the second.
Nice easy read, and just the thing to pass a wet sunday afternoon, while nursing a very real hangover!
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Pride Under Fire
Book 5 in the Lionheart series, and there is a pop up from Cesare and Hayden (book 4) which was nice!
Connor punched his commanding officer, and is shifted out to a town in the middle of nowhere, that needs a full time fire fighter. Andy is a detective in said town. Andy is human, Connor is not. Can Connor keep his mate safe, while the town burns around them?
Again, an easy read, that was just what I needed!
Connor knows he did wrong, punching his superior, but he won't apologise. Being shipped out was probably the best thing that happened to him, since he meets his mate. But Andy is human and lions don't mate with humans, do they?When there are several fires in town, in abandoned buildings, both Connor and Andy have to investigate. Then the bodies start piling up, and they know the arsonist has to be stopped , and soon.
There were several throw away comments that made me put the clues together for who the arsonist was very early on, and it was great to see it unfold the way I thought it would.
Again, the guys get down and dirty very early on, and I did like that here.
BUT
The general way the story goes is almost identical to book 4, Into The Arena. It's very VERY similar in that the human half gets taken, and the lion half comes to the rescue, mostly in the same way too!
Still, I did enjoy this as much as book 4, and I did read them back to back.
4 stars
Animal Passions
This is book 6 and for ME, the weakest of the three I've read.
Here's why:
It follows an almost identical plot line to the other two. Human half has sex with *someone* then goes off and meets mate. Mate and human get down and dirty right quick (did not like that here!) danger threatens human, lion reveals himself. human is taken by *stalker/arsonist/psycho editor assistant* and lion comes to the rescue. the end.
So, I'm sorry, but no, this one did not work for me. I only gave it 3 stars because I DID finish it, and it was touch and go for a while.
Maybe if I had NOT read them back to back, this one would have worked better, but I did read them back to back, and this is how I feel. And I'm all about the book feelings.
Sorry!
3 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Into The Arena
Cesare has been banished from his pride after his uncle cheated in a leadership fight. Finding work on a food truck headed from a for set seemed too good to be true. Finding Hayden as the star AND his fated mate, made Cesare think that maybe he wasn't supposed to win the fight at all. But Hayden has a stalker, and things turn deadly. Can Cesare keep his human mate safe, and will Hayden accept Cesare's lion half?
This is book 4 in the Lionhearts series and I have not read the other books. I did not feel I was missing anything, and so will say these are stand alones, with interconnecting characters, rather than a follow on series.
I liked this one. It did not blow me away, but right now, personally, this was JUST what I needed to read.
It's well told, with both Cesare and Hayden having a say. There is enough history for each of them, but not enough to be overwhelming in a short book. Well, I say SHORT, but it's still 176 pages! Didn't feel like it though!
I loved that we got some of the stalker too! They have their say in a couple of places, and I do love getting into the mind of the baddie! Did NOT see who that might have been, or rather, I had an idea, but was way off base.
It's quite sexy. There is a scene with Hayden getting down and dirty with his boyfriend BEFORE he and Cesare meet. Then Hayden and Cesare get down to it really quickly after meeting! Not sure how I feel about the first, but loved the second.
Nice easy read, and just the thing to pass a wet sunday afternoon, while nursing a very real hangover!
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Pride Under Fire
Book 5 in the Lionheart series, and there is a pop up from Cesare and Hayden (book 4) which was nice!
Connor punched his commanding officer, and is shifted out to a town in the middle of nowhere, that needs a full time fire fighter. Andy is a detective in said town. Andy is human, Connor is not. Can Connor keep his mate safe, while the town burns around them?
Again, an easy read, that was just what I needed!
Connor knows he did wrong, punching his superior, but he won't apologise. Being shipped out was probably the best thing that happened to him, since he meets his mate. But Andy is human and lions don't mate with humans, do they?When there are several fires in town, in abandoned buildings, both Connor and Andy have to investigate. Then the bodies start piling up, and they know the arsonist has to be stopped , and soon.
There were several throw away comments that made me put the clues together for who the arsonist was very early on, and it was great to see it unfold the way I thought it would.
Again, the guys get down and dirty very early on, and I did like that here.
BUT
The general way the story goes is almost identical to book 4, Into The Arena. It's very VERY similar in that the human half gets taken, and the lion half comes to the rescue, mostly in the same way too!
Still, I did enjoy this as much as book 4, and I did read them back to back.
4 stars
Animal Passions
This is book 6 and for ME, the weakest of the three I've read.
Here's why:
It follows an almost identical plot line to the other two. Human half has sex with *someone* then goes off and meets mate. Mate and human get down and dirty right quick (did not like that here!) danger threatens human, lion reveals himself. human is taken by *stalker/arsonist/psycho editor assistant* and lion comes to the rescue. the end.
So, I'm sorry, but no, this one did not work for me. I only gave it 3 stars because I DID finish it, and it was touch and go for a while.
Maybe if I had NOT read them back to back, this one would have worked better, but I did read them back to back, and this is how I feel. And I'm all about the book feelings.
Sorry!
3 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Tom Clancy's The Division 2 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Following up a hit game is never an easy task. The delicate balance
between keeping things familiar yet not repeating what has come before is
always tricky.
Such is the case facing Ubisoft with Tom Clancy’s The Division 2. I want to point out at the start that Ubisoft in no way helped
with the review process despite doing extensive pre-release coverage for
the game.
As such; there were elements to the game that I had question and issues with and the company would not respond to questions or even recognize the coverage that had been done prior.
The game follows up the events of the first game in that a virus named the
“Dollar Flu” has laid waste to the country after being passed around on
currency during the busy Christmas shopping season.
This time out the game
is set in Washington D.C. and players once again take on the role of a
member of an elite agency called “The Division”.
With the city in chaos and the survivors being tormented by criminal
factions and extreme militants; players must work solo and in groups to
complete various missions and objectives to reclaim the city.
Like the previous game players can customize their character to have a
look, weapons, and accessories that they want and can swap and update them
as they go along.
Playing from a third person perspective, the highly-detailed city is vast
and many points from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, and
Smithsonian Institute are available to explore and even undertake missions
in.
The enemies are dangerous as the vicious Hyena gang as well as the
Outcasts roam the city. There is also a Military faction called The True
Sons who bring military tactics into their encounters.
Players will be able to gather loot and armor and weapon upgrades as they
go and can even use special power ups to heal, set mines, and other traps
to help even the odds.
Those abilities can be upgraded, swapped, and assigned, and make the game
very interesting as some players opt to have a Drone while others elect
for Turrets or other options.
Weapons can go from pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles,
and players can also use grenades to dispatch large groups.
While working solo is fine, the key to success is working with others and
players can now call for backup to get help in addition to the general
matchmaking and friend invites. There has also been a Clan system added
which is nice as players can create or join a group and have support
available when needed.
This is a great thing as the missions can be challenging as your level
rank rises and players are always outnumbered and outgunned in missions.
I found the game to be very impressive and lots of fun and the ability to
upgrade bases and take on side missions and patrols beyond the core
missions ensures lots of gameplay as was the case with the first game.
There have also been updates which add new content and based on the prior
game, we expect to see lots of new content released in the months ahead.
There were some annoying issues with the sound as some channels would
drop. One example was how voices became muted and how some sounds such as
radio messages utterly vanished. While it was not a deal-breaker; it was
annoying s the updates pre and post mission help give players a great
understanding of the unfolding story.
I did like the fact that the abundance of side missions was curtailed in
favor of more relevant missions and capturing control points and helping
end threats to the general population.
One time I took control of a mounted machine gun and found the sound
locked during firing and continued for several minutes even after I
respawned. I had to go back to the gun and fire it again to get the sound
glitch to stop.
There were also some annoying graphical glitches like textures and enemies
appearing late while I was walking after the last update. With a 2070 GTX
Graphics Card this should not happen and thankfully it seemed to abate
after a few annoying occurrences.
That being said; the game is very solid and enjoyable and it is a shame
that a company that has such great games is very difficult to work with
from the media and support side of things as The Division 2 is a solid
sequel and one of the more enjoyable games I have played in a while.
http://sknr.net/2019/04/08/tom-clancys-the-division-2/
between keeping things familiar yet not repeating what has come before is
always tricky.
Such is the case facing Ubisoft with Tom Clancy’s The Division 2. I want to point out at the start that Ubisoft in no way helped
with the review process despite doing extensive pre-release coverage for
the game.
As such; there were elements to the game that I had question and issues with and the company would not respond to questions or even recognize the coverage that had been done prior.
The game follows up the events of the first game in that a virus named the
“Dollar Flu” has laid waste to the country after being passed around on
currency during the busy Christmas shopping season.
This time out the game
is set in Washington D.C. and players once again take on the role of a
member of an elite agency called “The Division”.
With the city in chaos and the survivors being tormented by criminal
factions and extreme militants; players must work solo and in groups to
complete various missions and objectives to reclaim the city.
Like the previous game players can customize their character to have a
look, weapons, and accessories that they want and can swap and update them
as they go along.
Playing from a third person perspective, the highly-detailed city is vast
and many points from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, and
Smithsonian Institute are available to explore and even undertake missions
in.
The enemies are dangerous as the vicious Hyena gang as well as the
Outcasts roam the city. There is also a Military faction called The True
Sons who bring military tactics into their encounters.
Players will be able to gather loot and armor and weapon upgrades as they
go and can even use special power ups to heal, set mines, and other traps
to help even the odds.
Those abilities can be upgraded, swapped, and assigned, and make the game
very interesting as some players opt to have a Drone while others elect
for Turrets or other options.
Weapons can go from pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles,
and players can also use grenades to dispatch large groups.
While working solo is fine, the key to success is working with others and
players can now call for backup to get help in addition to the general
matchmaking and friend invites. There has also been a Clan system added
which is nice as players can create or join a group and have support
available when needed.
This is a great thing as the missions can be challenging as your level
rank rises and players are always outnumbered and outgunned in missions.
I found the game to be very impressive and lots of fun and the ability to
upgrade bases and take on side missions and patrols beyond the core
missions ensures lots of gameplay as was the case with the first game.
There have also been updates which add new content and based on the prior
game, we expect to see lots of new content released in the months ahead.
There were some annoying issues with the sound as some channels would
drop. One example was how voices became muted and how some sounds such as
radio messages utterly vanished. While it was not a deal-breaker; it was
annoying s the updates pre and post mission help give players a great
understanding of the unfolding story.
I did like the fact that the abundance of side missions was curtailed in
favor of more relevant missions and capturing control points and helping
end threats to the general population.
One time I took control of a mounted machine gun and found the sound
locked during firing and continued for several minutes even after I
respawned. I had to go back to the gun and fire it again to get the sound
glitch to stop.
There were also some annoying graphical glitches like textures and enemies
appearing late while I was walking after the last update. With a 2070 GTX
Graphics Card this should not happen and thankfully it seemed to abate
after a few annoying occurrences.
That being said; the game is very solid and enjoyable and it is a shame
that a company that has such great games is very difficult to work with
from the media and support side of things as The Division 2 is a solid
sequel and one of the more enjoyable games I have played in a while.
http://sknr.net/2019/04/08/tom-clancys-the-division-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Social Network (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t know about Facebook. On any given day, at least 250 million active users log on to Facebook and spend over 700 billion minutes per month updating their status, posting pictures or playing casual games. So dominant is this social network, the name itself is both a brand and a verb. Who would have thought that sharing inanities about what we’re currently thinking, eating, reading, watching with our friends would garner such interest? In the new movie The Social Network, director David Fincher sets out to show how, from the very humblest beginnings, Facebook became the juggernaut that it is today.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Awaken (Awakened Fate #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Awaken is the first book in the Awakened Fate series by Skye Malone, and I'm pretty familiar with her other series as Megan Joel Peterson (The Children and the Blood trilogy) that I was confident her latest book will go into my good graces pretty easily. Thing is, Awaken reminded me so much of The Little Mermaid, I can't help but have the urge to sing "Under the Sea" and ask one question:
<b>"Sebastian, Sebastian, where art thou?"</b>
I had also associated funny brow movements with the author in particular. As in, brows drawing down, which I still don't know how that works without your brows looking like a seesaw or ending up with a pouting pucker fish face.
But back to The Little Mermaid similarities... and not brow movements.
Chloe has red hair, or as the book describes, auburn. But auburn's technically red with a tinge of brown. Ariel has red hair. The difference? Chloe doesn't know how to swim, and has been living on land her entire life. Then there's Zeke, which I sort of predicted him to have dark hair, and he does! Just like the princey dude for whom I've forgotten the name. In fact, said unknown princeling stalks Ariel, and so does Zeke... due to curiosity on who the pretty girl is. It's not revealed in Awaken, but I won't be surprised if Zeke is a prince.
<blockquote>Despite the fact we were barely any distance from the shore, the temperature had dropped to levels ordinarily found in places even deeper than Nyciena, with darkness to match.</blockquote>
Every book has got to have an Ursula of some sort. And she just oozes darkness, doesn't she? Too bad the Ursulas here aren't Octopuses. ;)
<blockquote>The girl changed the ocean when she was near it – a statement that on any level should have been impossible.</blockquote>
Okay, here's Sophia Lin logic: See, Ariel has a curse. I was sort of assuming Chloe willingly turned into a human just like Ariel, but she doesn't lose her voice, right? Except, here's the curse: she changes the ocean... and it's not exactly a pleasant way. Technically, that logic isn't going to get you far, because it isn't true, and I can't reveal the actual answer without spoiling anything. Nor do I want to reveal anything, because answers are spoilers, and not everyone can be trusted with the trusty little spoiler button. ;)
Then there are the differences, which pretty much revamps The Little Mermaid. Enough commentary on Little Mermaid.
Awaken follows two views – Chloe and Zeke. The best part of those two views though? They balance each other out pretty well. Chloe doesn't really know anything about what she is, so we're basically following a naïve character for most of the story who has strange things happening to her and strange peeps with glowing eyes wanting to murder the likes of her. Very boring in my opinion, because she doesn't know what's going on and it's all confusing and she's stuck in the hospital every once in awhile from an unfortunate encounter with said strange flowing peepy eyes. Zeke balances her out because he pretty much knows what's going on from his observations – but he doesn't really know what Chloe is until the end either.
Let's just say that balance is a good thing. Because I just can't handle an utterly boring character, and I'm sure not everyone likes that either. But if there's one thing Chloe has that makes her an interesting character, it's her voice and her frustration on why her parents hate the ocean with a passion and come up with logical, but weird excuses for them.
The only problem I probably have is how some of the terms don't appear in the pronunciation guide, and how the long ones are confusing. Maybe my head just needs to wrap around them after reading Irish terms from the second book in the Danaan Trilogy. O_o
Awaken is a good start to the Awakened Fate series, and while we spend most of the time above the surface, it's hinted that the sequel will most likely be focused underwater. It's a quick read for those who enjoy reading stories related to <s>merps</s> merpeople.
------------------
original rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-awaken-by-skye-malone.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
<b>"Sebastian, Sebastian, where art thou?"</b>
I had also associated funny brow movements with the author in particular. As in, brows drawing down, which I still don't know how that works without your brows looking like a seesaw or ending up with a pouting pucker fish face.
But back to The Little Mermaid similarities... and not brow movements.
Chloe has red hair, or as the book describes, auburn. But auburn's technically red with a tinge of brown. Ariel has red hair. The difference? Chloe doesn't know how to swim, and has been living on land her entire life. Then there's Zeke, which I sort of predicted him to have dark hair, and he does! Just like the princey dude for whom I've forgotten the name. In fact, said unknown princeling stalks Ariel, and so does Zeke... due to curiosity on who the pretty girl is. It's not revealed in Awaken, but I won't be surprised if Zeke is a prince.
<blockquote>Despite the fact we were barely any distance from the shore, the temperature had dropped to levels ordinarily found in places even deeper than Nyciena, with darkness to match.</blockquote>
Every book has got to have an Ursula of some sort. And she just oozes darkness, doesn't she? Too bad the Ursulas here aren't Octopuses. ;)
<blockquote>The girl changed the ocean when she was near it – a statement that on any level should have been impossible.</blockquote>
Okay, here's Sophia Lin logic: See, Ariel has a curse. I was sort of assuming Chloe willingly turned into a human just like Ariel, but she doesn't lose her voice, right? Except, here's the curse: she changes the ocean... and it's not exactly a pleasant way. Technically, that logic isn't going to get you far, because it isn't true, and I can't reveal the actual answer without spoiling anything. Nor do I want to reveal anything, because answers are spoilers, and not everyone can be trusted with the trusty little spoiler button. ;)
Then there are the differences, which pretty much revamps The Little Mermaid. Enough commentary on Little Mermaid.
Awaken follows two views – Chloe and Zeke. The best part of those two views though? They balance each other out pretty well. Chloe doesn't really know anything about what she is, so we're basically following a naïve character for most of the story who has strange things happening to her and strange peeps with glowing eyes wanting to murder the likes of her. Very boring in my opinion, because she doesn't know what's going on and it's all confusing and she's stuck in the hospital every once in awhile from an unfortunate encounter with said strange flowing peepy eyes. Zeke balances her out because he pretty much knows what's going on from his observations – but he doesn't really know what Chloe is until the end either.
Let's just say that balance is a good thing. Because I just can't handle an utterly boring character, and I'm sure not everyone likes that either. But if there's one thing Chloe has that makes her an interesting character, it's her voice and her frustration on why her parents hate the ocean with a passion and come up with logical, but weird excuses for them.
The only problem I probably have is how some of the terms don't appear in the pronunciation guide, and how the long ones are confusing. Maybe my head just needs to wrap around them after reading Irish terms from the second book in the Danaan Trilogy. O_o
Awaken is a good start to the Awakened Fate series, and while we spend most of the time above the surface, it's hinted that the sequel will most likely be focused underwater. It's a quick read for those who enjoy reading stories related to <s>merps</s> merpeople.
------------------
original rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-awaken-by-skye-malone.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
Okja (pronounced ok-cha, as far as I can discern from hearing it said) was a film I had on my radar from its release, but it took the impetus of Parasite and director Bong Joon Ho winning the Oscar to kick me into settling down to watch it. It is the kind of film I would have seen as a matter of course when I worked at the beloved Cameo Cinema, Edinburgh, back in the day… but the kind of film it takes me a while to get around to these days.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
To say I found this hard to watch could not be more understated. Any adult that has risked their whole life on a true love that runs its course and then fails must surely feel the same. It happens to most of us once or twice in a lifetime, and resonates forever. Such is the level of truth and sadness on display in Noah Baumbach’s beautifully written and directed tale of two people in turmoil, whose biggest obstacle is not one another, but the dispassion and ineffectiveness of legality, and even friends and family, to resolve big issues of a personal nature.
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fast Five (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The 2011 summer movie season kicks off in high gear with the release of Fast Five the latest installment in the phenomenally popular Fast and Furious series. The movie picks up exactly where the previous film ended with Brian O’ Conner (Paul Walker), orchestrating a daring escape for Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel).
The film quickly moves forward in time where Brian and Dominic’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), overall fugitives from the law, have taken refuge in Rio. Unsure of exactly where Dominic is, an old family friend offers Brian and Mia roles in a job which will surely score them some very easy and much-needed money. Although reluctant, Brian agrees to the job which involves the theft of three high-value cars from a train. Things go horribly wrong when they’re doublecrossed, the aftermath of which leads to the death of three federal agents. Only Dominic’s arrival, quick thinking, and a daring escape allows Brian and Mia to survive.
Although it is not their fault, the deaths of the agents is blamed solely on the trio, and an elite fugitive hunter named Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) arrives with his team with the sole mission of stopping Brian, Mia and Dominic, no matter the cost.
As if this wasn’t enough trouble for the fugities, it is learned that they have also fallen on the radar of the local drug kingpin named Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), who will stop at nothing to retrieve an item now in the trio’s possession. Caught in the crossfire between Hobbs and Reyes, Dominic plots an epic caper that will allow them not only the money to flee Hobbs and disappear into a life of luxury, but allow them to settle the score with Reyes.
What follows is a nonstop action thrill ride that sprinkles in a nice mix of comedy and romance to keep things interesting. The film downplays the racing aspect of the series and instead saves the spectacular driving for key action sequences. While street racing scenes are alluded to they are not shown as director Justin Chin focuses squarely on his cast and allows them ample time to develop their characters. In doing so it strengthens the bond between them and allows the climactic sequence to have an even greater impact than your standard over-the-top summer film action scenes.
.
There are some really funny moments in the film as Dominic assembles his team to pull off the ultimate job. The new characters work very well with the established cast from the previous films and introduce characters which I hope will be a part of any future films in the series. Johnson was a very pleasant surprise, as his character could easily have been one-dimensional. He was given a few wrinkles which allowed him to walk the fine line between good guy and bad guy, which is an essential quality to many of the film’s characters. Johnson’s action sequences were solid and highly effective and once again underscores that he needs to be focusing more on action films and less on the family-friendly genre that
has dominated the bulk of his recent work.
Walker and Diesel complement each other perfectly and appear to be having a great time working with one another again. They have a very easy-going and natural chemistry with one another that works even when they’re not behind the wheel of a car or caught up in a frantic action scene.
While the plot of the film is fairly straightforward it provides ample framework for the characters to grow and propel the story forward. While the audience is asked to take some great leaps in logic it doesn’t derail from the finished product. The stuntwork in the film was absolutely amazing and the spectacular finale of the movie alone must be seen to be believed.
Many times during my press screening the audience was completely silent for a brief second following an action sequence before erupting into thunderous applause and cheers after they’ve fully processed what just unfolded on the screen. Larger-than-life characters combined with larger-than-life action, plus some very sexy cars and very sexy people make an extremely winning formula. If the rumors are true, Chin may be handed the reins to the Terminator franchise as well as the next film in the Fast and Furious series, then audiences are in for one hell of a ride.
I think my wife summed it up best when she said that movie was “Ridiculous…ridiculously good.” Reality is thrown out the window for pure adrenaline and testosterone fueled action.
The film quickly moves forward in time where Brian and Dominic’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), overall fugitives from the law, have taken refuge in Rio. Unsure of exactly where Dominic is, an old family friend offers Brian and Mia roles in a job which will surely score them some very easy and much-needed money. Although reluctant, Brian agrees to the job which involves the theft of three high-value cars from a train. Things go horribly wrong when they’re doublecrossed, the aftermath of which leads to the death of three federal agents. Only Dominic’s arrival, quick thinking, and a daring escape allows Brian and Mia to survive.
Although it is not their fault, the deaths of the agents is blamed solely on the trio, and an elite fugitive hunter named Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) arrives with his team with the sole mission of stopping Brian, Mia and Dominic, no matter the cost.
As if this wasn’t enough trouble for the fugities, it is learned that they have also fallen on the radar of the local drug kingpin named Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), who will stop at nothing to retrieve an item now in the trio’s possession. Caught in the crossfire between Hobbs and Reyes, Dominic plots an epic caper that will allow them not only the money to flee Hobbs and disappear into a life of luxury, but allow them to settle the score with Reyes.
What follows is a nonstop action thrill ride that sprinkles in a nice mix of comedy and romance to keep things interesting. The film downplays the racing aspect of the series and instead saves the spectacular driving for key action sequences. While street racing scenes are alluded to they are not shown as director Justin Chin focuses squarely on his cast and allows them ample time to develop their characters. In doing so it strengthens the bond between them and allows the climactic sequence to have an even greater impact than your standard over-the-top summer film action scenes.
.
There are some really funny moments in the film as Dominic assembles his team to pull off the ultimate job. The new characters work very well with the established cast from the previous films and introduce characters which I hope will be a part of any future films in the series. Johnson was a very pleasant surprise, as his character could easily have been one-dimensional. He was given a few wrinkles which allowed him to walk the fine line between good guy and bad guy, which is an essential quality to many of the film’s characters. Johnson’s action sequences were solid and highly effective and once again underscores that he needs to be focusing more on action films and less on the family-friendly genre that
has dominated the bulk of his recent work.
Walker and Diesel complement each other perfectly and appear to be having a great time working with one another again. They have a very easy-going and natural chemistry with one another that works even when they’re not behind the wheel of a car or caught up in a frantic action scene.
While the plot of the film is fairly straightforward it provides ample framework for the characters to grow and propel the story forward. While the audience is asked to take some great leaps in logic it doesn’t derail from the finished product. The stuntwork in the film was absolutely amazing and the spectacular finale of the movie alone must be seen to be believed.
Many times during my press screening the audience was completely silent for a brief second following an action sequence before erupting into thunderous applause and cheers after they’ve fully processed what just unfolded on the screen. Larger-than-life characters combined with larger-than-life action, plus some very sexy cars and very sexy people make an extremely winning formula. If the rumors are true, Chin may be handed the reins to the Terminator franchise as well as the next film in the Fast and Furious series, then audiences are in for one hell of a ride.
I think my wife summed it up best when she said that movie was “Ridiculous…ridiculously good.” Reality is thrown out the window for pure adrenaline and testosterone fueled action.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.