Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
A wonderful movie
I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie. I, along with countless millions around the world, have fond memories of watching regular re-runs of Laurel & Hardy movies on TV, and they hold a very special place in so many people's hearts. Timeless legends that deserve to be remembered for generations to come. That being said, the preview screening I attended last night was probably only a quarter full, so I fear that this story detailing the latter part of their career isn't really going to appeal to mainstream audiences. I kind of hope it reignites interest in their work though as this truly is a wonderful film.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Crude: check. Offensive: check. It’s Borat… what do you expect?
Kazakh news-hound Borat Margaret Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is in trouble with his country's rulers after his first 'moviefilm' brought shame and disrepute to the country. Under threat of death he is sent on a mission to deliver Johnny - a monkey, but the most popular celebrity in Kazakhstan - as a gift to Donald Trump.
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated The Captor (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
2019 certainly seems to be the year of Ethan Hawke slaying it in movies! The Kid was a powerhouse performance enough to warrant and the year off but then The Captor is released and once again. Wow. Ethan Hawke only goes and blows the bloody doors off this real-life true story about a bank robbery in Stockholm. This is our The Captor review.
It’s 1973 and Lars Nystrom (Hawke) walks into a bank in Stockholm firing a rifle and takes two staff members hostage. Demanding $1m, a blue Mustang and the release of Gunnar Sorensson (Mark Strong) a famous bank robber. What transpires over the next few hours is beyond belief and it’s difficult to even comprehend that most of this actually happened in real life!
Starring an all-star cast of Hawke, Mark Strong and Noomi Rapace The Captor has cult classic written all over it. Hawke plays this bat shit crazy robber who’s jumped in way above his head. The performances all round not only support Hawke’s center stage dominance but they add depth to the story. We have moments of relaxation in the vaults as character arcs are developed and relationships formed. It really is a film that’s all guns blazing one minute, hilarious comedic moments the next and then tones down and becomes level headed the next.
Director and screenwriter Robert Budreau never over embellish any scenes or characters. We really see both sides of Nystrom’s (Hawke) motives and back story. A man so up front with bravado when push comes to shove but a character of layers with a vulnerable and kind-nature hiding inside. The latter of those personality traits leads to one of the captors in question falling for her captor. Stockholm Syndrome explains this very phenomenon and in the US the movie is actually titled ‘Stockholm’ before being renamed to The Captor here in the UK.
Mark Strong rocks the double denim as Gunnar Sorensson and acts like a brother of sorts to Hawke’s Nystrom. It’s great watching the scenes between the police throughout as they scramble to try and meet Nystrom’s ludicrous demands. Gunnar’s intentions are never clear or really explained throughout. He’s just happy to be out of jail if albeit with an ulterior motive.
I feel as thou the direction of the movie is trying to put us in the shoes of the hostages. The very same hostages that in real life never testified against their captors. They’re portrayed as the rebellious force with good motives whilst the police are portrayed as the bad guys who want to make them pay. Noomi Rapace plays the emotional anchor of the movie and the bond that develops between her and Nystrom is palpable.
“This movie has cult classic written all over it”
There’s no psychological explanation about the phenom that is Stockholm Syndrom it’s just a routine, tootin good time!
https://backtothemovies.com/the-captor-review-a-cult-classic-ethan-hawke-at-his-finest/
It’s 1973 and Lars Nystrom (Hawke) walks into a bank in Stockholm firing a rifle and takes two staff members hostage. Demanding $1m, a blue Mustang and the release of Gunnar Sorensson (Mark Strong) a famous bank robber. What transpires over the next few hours is beyond belief and it’s difficult to even comprehend that most of this actually happened in real life!
Starring an all-star cast of Hawke, Mark Strong and Noomi Rapace The Captor has cult classic written all over it. Hawke plays this bat shit crazy robber who’s jumped in way above his head. The performances all round not only support Hawke’s center stage dominance but they add depth to the story. We have moments of relaxation in the vaults as character arcs are developed and relationships formed. It really is a film that’s all guns blazing one minute, hilarious comedic moments the next and then tones down and becomes level headed the next.
Director and screenwriter Robert Budreau never over embellish any scenes or characters. We really see both sides of Nystrom’s (Hawke) motives and back story. A man so up front with bravado when push comes to shove but a character of layers with a vulnerable and kind-nature hiding inside. The latter of those personality traits leads to one of the captors in question falling for her captor. Stockholm Syndrome explains this very phenomenon and in the US the movie is actually titled ‘Stockholm’ before being renamed to The Captor here in the UK.
Mark Strong rocks the double denim as Gunnar Sorensson and acts like a brother of sorts to Hawke’s Nystrom. It’s great watching the scenes between the police throughout as they scramble to try and meet Nystrom’s ludicrous demands. Gunnar’s intentions are never clear or really explained throughout. He’s just happy to be out of jail if albeit with an ulterior motive.
I feel as thou the direction of the movie is trying to put us in the shoes of the hostages. The very same hostages that in real life never testified against their captors. They’re portrayed as the rebellious force with good motives whilst the police are portrayed as the bad guys who want to make them pay. Noomi Rapace plays the emotional anchor of the movie and the bond that develops between her and Nystrom is palpable.
“This movie has cult classic written all over it”
There’s no psychological explanation about the phenom that is Stockholm Syndrom it’s just a routine, tootin good time!
https://backtothemovies.com/the-captor-review-a-cult-classic-ethan-hawke-at-his-finest/
How to Hypnotise Anyone - Confessions of a Rogue Hypnotist
9.0
Rate It
Book
The number 1 Amazon kindle bestseller on hypnosis is now available in paperback! Finally the hidden...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Anarchic and very funny script, with some great visual gags (1 more)
Elba, Davis and Robbie all great. As is new name Daniela Melchior.
What a difference a "The" makes! The original "Suicide Squad" from 2016 was a botched and lacklustre affair, getting just 5/10 from me. James Gunn's semi-reboot is hyper-violent, overlong, totally ludicrous but a whole bunch of fun.
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated A Little Princess in Books
Nov 7, 2019
A little Princess was published in full by Charles Scribner's sons in September of 1905 after being a serialisation in St. Nicholas Magazine in 1887 and being a novella in 1888. The book was named one of the Teachers top books for children in 2007 and in 2012 was ranked 56th in the School Library Journal survey. The story follows Sara Crewe a wealthy heiress being sent off to boarding school in England. Despite being wealthy Sara isn't snobbish and rude but polite, clever and generous befriending several other students and the scullery maid Becky. Sara goes from privilege to a pauper after her fathers scheme with is friend over a diamond mine supposedly fails. After spending a few years working hard at the school she once attended Sara is found by her fathers friend and returned to privilege after finding out the diamond mines actually worked.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
