Search
Search results
Wow, this read was an absolute emotional rollercoaster, sometimes shattering my heart into million pieces and making me angry for all the injustice author had to suffer, and sometimes making me feel so proud for all the achievements Christine was able to conquer.
This book is a memoir of Christine Clayfield, where she is sharing her life story. The story begins when she was five years old, and it continues throughout her life, including rebellious teenage years, until the present, when she is 58 years old. All the past memories were triggered when suddenly she gets a call, that her mother is very ill and she has to return to Belgium, where she faces the ghosts from her past. Her youth years are very brutal and the amount of violence and abuse she had to face from her father is absolutely unbelievable. To top her already sad life, she married a violent man, who made her life even more miserable. I tend to question people’s choices in these type of books. Why they didn’t look for help? Why they didn’t complain to other family members? Why they stayed silent? And in many books I do find the answers which sound illogical, but not in this book. Christine explains everything very clearly, and for me, her thoughts and feelings fully explain every choice she had to make. I’m absolutely touched by how honest this book is. Christine poured her heart out and is sharing the deepest and darkest events with the readers, and I applaud her bravery because, I believe, it should have been a really difficult book to write.
The events in this book were jumping between present and past, giving a little insight of what will come. The author shared a beautiful story of how she met her present husband and the letters they shared while apart. They were absolutely adorable. The amount of topics discussed in this book is huge, such as child abuse, bullying, mentally caused illnesses, family problems, relationships with friends, alcoholism, loose sexual behaviour, domestic violence, business ideas, distance relationship, effects of divorce, and many many more. The author is openly speaking about nuns and their cruelty, and I thought nuns supposed to be kind and helpful, but they looked like tyrants rather than saints. (I kind of knew it, but still, was stupidly surprised about this fact 😀 )
The writing style is very pleasant and the language is easy and understandable. The chapters are a decent length and it doesn’t leave you bored. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, this book is not very easy mentally, there is a lot of cruelty and violence and does have a lot of heartbreaking moments, so tissues and strong nerves are recommended. 🙂 I loved the way Christine rounded up her novel, it left me really satisfied. So, to conclude, this work is incredibly inspiring and I do believe it should be widely spread to share the awareness of how you can do anything you put your mind to. That “can do” attitude, clear goals and a lot of hard work will make you successful, no matter what you endured in life. It is all in you, you just need to find it. Please do support this book, there is a lot of things to learn from Christine because she is freaking amazing and her story is absolutely inspiring. Enjoy 🙂
This book is a memoir of Christine Clayfield, where she is sharing her life story. The story begins when she was five years old, and it continues throughout her life, including rebellious teenage years, until the present, when she is 58 years old. All the past memories were triggered when suddenly she gets a call, that her mother is very ill and she has to return to Belgium, where she faces the ghosts from her past. Her youth years are very brutal and the amount of violence and abuse she had to face from her father is absolutely unbelievable. To top her already sad life, she married a violent man, who made her life even more miserable. I tend to question people’s choices in these type of books. Why they didn’t look for help? Why they didn’t complain to other family members? Why they stayed silent? And in many books I do find the answers which sound illogical, but not in this book. Christine explains everything very clearly, and for me, her thoughts and feelings fully explain every choice she had to make. I’m absolutely touched by how honest this book is. Christine poured her heart out and is sharing the deepest and darkest events with the readers, and I applaud her bravery because, I believe, it should have been a really difficult book to write.
The events in this book were jumping between present and past, giving a little insight of what will come. The author shared a beautiful story of how she met her present husband and the letters they shared while apart. They were absolutely adorable. The amount of topics discussed in this book is huge, such as child abuse, bullying, mentally caused illnesses, family problems, relationships with friends, alcoholism, loose sexual behaviour, domestic violence, business ideas, distance relationship, effects of divorce, and many many more. The author is openly speaking about nuns and their cruelty, and I thought nuns supposed to be kind and helpful, but they looked like tyrants rather than saints. (I kind of knew it, but still, was stupidly surprised about this fact 😀 )
The writing style is very pleasant and the language is easy and understandable. The chapters are a decent length and it doesn’t leave you bored. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, this book is not very easy mentally, there is a lot of cruelty and violence and does have a lot of heartbreaking moments, so tissues and strong nerves are recommended. 🙂 I loved the way Christine rounded up her novel, it left me really satisfied. So, to conclude, this work is incredibly inspiring and I do believe it should be widely spread to share the awareness of how you can do anything you put your mind to. That “can do” attitude, clear goals and a lot of hard work will make you successful, no matter what you endured in life. It is all in you, you just need to find it. Please do support this book, there is a lot of things to learn from Christine because she is freaking amazing and her story is absolutely inspiring. Enjoy 🙂
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated New X-Men: Childhood's End, Volume 1 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
In an era where Marvel tries to oversaturate the comics market with event after event, and renumbering, along with the line between heroes and villains blurred so much it is draining (and not just my account!).
..which brings my attention backwards, to 2006's NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END.
I skipped out when the series first launched as NEW X-MEN: ACADEMY X. It seemed generic and the stories I flipped through did nothing to grab my attention. It wasn't until the rebranding of the series as NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END, with Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost taking over the writing as well providng a new revolving artist lineup.
While this first volume was a bit hard to follow, what with the jumping back forth with flashbacks and time rollbacks, but the second reading made more sense. I don't know that I would have written it out that way, but then again, it wasn't my book.
One of the things that really clicked for me was having Kyle and Yost on board. As the creators of Laura Kinney (X-23), I thought her introduction to the team would be handled well. Let's just say I was left feeling quite good, enough so that I will be reading the remaining volumes in the series.
The way she is written is as a lost girl. Logan wants her on the team, as it will help her to integrate, learn more about non-violent interaction. She is resistant at first mention, but then she comes around. However, despite her joining the New X-Men class, it is not an easy ride as she is withdrawn, though we do see the first sparks of interest on her part in Hellion. Unfortunately, her fellow classmates don't make it that easy for her to want to interaction, opting to go the route that most new students are treated in RL. So yeah, makes sense.
The only thing I didn't really like was Laura was referred to as either X-23 or Laura X, instead of Laura Kinney. I am not sure why that was, but as much I found it disappointing, it did not detract the story any. More often that not, when it came up in a panel, I would just read as "Laura" (minus the "X") or Laura Kinney. Easy fix, eh?
The art chores of the first volume went to Mark Brooks. I usually like his art, but sometimes (like in X-FORCE) he would give Laura a bust line not befitting a character like that. Here, though, everything was perfect, aiding in setting the darker "M-Day" and post-"M-Day" mood. I quite liked it, suited the content 100%.
Last thing I want to add is this: WOW! EMMA FROST IS A MEGA SALTY BITCH! Her treatment of Laura was totally uncalled for and way off base. Heck, she used to be the White Queen, yet she is now an X-Men. Everyone deserves a chance, even a former assassin (well, in fairness, it was how she was raised/trained, she really knew nothing else).
So, and including bitchy Emma, I give X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END VOL ! 5 out 5 SNIKTs! Not bad! Now, onto Volume Two...
..which brings my attention backwards, to 2006's NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END.
I skipped out when the series first launched as NEW X-MEN: ACADEMY X. It seemed generic and the stories I flipped through did nothing to grab my attention. It wasn't until the rebranding of the series as NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END, with Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost taking over the writing as well providng a new revolving artist lineup.
While this first volume was a bit hard to follow, what with the jumping back forth with flashbacks and time rollbacks, but the second reading made more sense. I don't know that I would have written it out that way, but then again, it wasn't my book.
One of the things that really clicked for me was having Kyle and Yost on board. As the creators of Laura Kinney (X-23), I thought her introduction to the team would be handled well. Let's just say I was left feeling quite good, enough so that I will be reading the remaining volumes in the series.
The way she is written is as a lost girl. Logan wants her on the team, as it will help her to integrate, learn more about non-violent interaction. She is resistant at first mention, but then she comes around. However, despite her joining the New X-Men class, it is not an easy ride as she is withdrawn, though we do see the first sparks of interest on her part in Hellion. Unfortunately, her fellow classmates don't make it that easy for her to want to interaction, opting to go the route that most new students are treated in RL. So yeah, makes sense.
The only thing I didn't really like was Laura was referred to as either X-23 or Laura X, instead of Laura Kinney. I am not sure why that was, but as much I found it disappointing, it did not detract the story any. More often that not, when it came up in a panel, I would just read as "Laura" (minus the "X") or Laura Kinney. Easy fix, eh?
The art chores of the first volume went to Mark Brooks. I usually like his art, but sometimes (like in X-FORCE) he would give Laura a bust line not befitting a character like that. Here, though, everything was perfect, aiding in setting the darker "M-Day" and post-"M-Day" mood. I quite liked it, suited the content 100%.
Last thing I want to add is this: WOW! EMMA FROST IS A MEGA SALTY BITCH! Her treatment of Laura was totally uncalled for and way off base. Heck, she used to be the White Queen, yet she is now an X-Men. Everyone deserves a chance, even a former assassin (well, in fairness, it was how she was raised/trained, she really knew nothing else).
So, and including bitchy Emma, I give X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END VOL ! 5 out 5 SNIKTs! Not bad! Now, onto Volume Two...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Honest Thief (2020) in Movies
Dec 3, 2020
Chemistry between Neeson and Walsh (1 more)
Great cinematography around a scenic Boston
As discussed in my One Mann's Movies review of "Cold Pursuit", Liam Neeson has had a rather rocky PR road of late. But - unlike Kevin Spacey - he is clearly not being put on the naughty step by Hollywood, since he is filming/announced for five other features at the time of writing. His latest release - "Honest Thief" - has Mark Williams directing and co-writing (with Steve Allrich), and sees Neeson back on VERY familiar territory in an exciting and sometimes violent thriller.
The nice concept behind the story sees Tom (Liam Neeson) as a hugely successful bank robber meeting the love of his life in Annie (Kate Walsh) and committing to jack it all in for love. Furthermore, not wishing to have to live with the deception and guilt of his hidden life, he determines to hand himself over to the FBI, along with the $9 million stolen cash, in return for a lenient sentence.
There's a problem though: he's about the fifteenth person calling the FBI claiming to be the "In and Out burgler", so no-one wants to take him seriously. Boston area chief Sam Baker (Robert Patrick - the "Terminator" cop!) and his deputy Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan) casually put it on the "to-do" pile of agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Hall (Anthony Ramos).
The best laid plans run off the rails in a big way though when Nivens and Hall investigate and find that Tom is the real deal.
The concept here works nicely for a thriller, but the rest of the script is so formulaic that it's fairly and squarely a 'park your brain in the foyer' movie. For several of the actions and motives going on here, suspension of disbelief was required . Even given the limited competition in 2020, the script is in no way going to trouble the Academy.
All that being said, Mark Williams has put together a tight and well-executed movie, not outstaying its welcome at only 99 minutes long. Even with the 15 year age difference, Neeson and Walsh make a believable couple (given that Neeson looks pretty good for his 68 years) and the chemistry between them is great. And for a pretty 'small' movie, the supporting cast is pretty impressive.
Another standout for me was the cinematography by Shelly Johnson (whose had a busy year with the latest "Bill and Ted" and "Greyhound" under his belt). Boston - always a great movie location - looks spectacular, and the framing of the car chase action impressed me.
For me, there was only one really dodgy element of the movie: the special effects used in a house explosion/fire. The budget clearly didn't stretch to using practical effects! More work on Adobe "After Effects" (or similar) was required here!
Is Honest Thief worth seeing? - My expectations for this movie were pretty low. But I'm pleased to say that they were exceeded. Is it a masterpiece? No. Will I readily remember much about it in six month's time? No. But in rather a desert of new releases, this one was at least entertaining and I think it's worth the ticket price for a long overdue night out at the flicks. I'm willing to guess that my feelings were partially influenced by the sheer joy of being back in a cinema again... so I will temper my rating perhaps by a star here.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://rb.gy/9kcnr5. Thanks.)
The nice concept behind the story sees Tom (Liam Neeson) as a hugely successful bank robber meeting the love of his life in Annie (Kate Walsh) and committing to jack it all in for love. Furthermore, not wishing to have to live with the deception and guilt of his hidden life, he determines to hand himself over to the FBI, along with the $9 million stolen cash, in return for a lenient sentence.
There's a problem though: he's about the fifteenth person calling the FBI claiming to be the "In and Out burgler", so no-one wants to take him seriously. Boston area chief Sam Baker (Robert Patrick - the "Terminator" cop!) and his deputy Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan) casually put it on the "to-do" pile of agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Hall (Anthony Ramos).
The best laid plans run off the rails in a big way though when Nivens and Hall investigate and find that Tom is the real deal.
The concept here works nicely for a thriller, but the rest of the script is so formulaic that it's fairly and squarely a 'park your brain in the foyer' movie. For several of the actions and motives going on here, suspension of disbelief was required . Even given the limited competition in 2020, the script is in no way going to trouble the Academy.
All that being said, Mark Williams has put together a tight and well-executed movie, not outstaying its welcome at only 99 minutes long. Even with the 15 year age difference, Neeson and Walsh make a believable couple (given that Neeson looks pretty good for his 68 years) and the chemistry between them is great. And for a pretty 'small' movie, the supporting cast is pretty impressive.
Another standout for me was the cinematography by Shelly Johnson (whose had a busy year with the latest "Bill and Ted" and "Greyhound" under his belt). Boston - always a great movie location - looks spectacular, and the framing of the car chase action impressed me.
For me, there was only one really dodgy element of the movie: the special effects used in a house explosion/fire. The budget clearly didn't stretch to using practical effects! More work on Adobe "After Effects" (or similar) was required here!
Is Honest Thief worth seeing? - My expectations for this movie were pretty low. But I'm pleased to say that they were exceeded. Is it a masterpiece? No. Will I readily remember much about it in six month's time? No. But in rather a desert of new releases, this one was at least entertaining and I think it's worth the ticket price for a long overdue night out at the flicks. I'm willing to guess that my feelings were partially influenced by the sheer joy of being back in a cinema again... so I will temper my rating perhaps by a star here.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://rb.gy/9kcnr5. Thanks.)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Snatch (2001) in Movies
Dec 20, 2020
Hilarious
Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Snatch
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Suffragette (2015) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: Suffragette starts in 1912, woman still don’t have the right to vote, but the battle for equality continues to wage on with Emmeline Pankhurst (Streep) pushes the campaign through. We follow Maud Watts (Mulligan) who finds herself witnessing one of the campaigns with Violet Miller (Duff) bringing her into their movement.
When the latest campaign gets rejected scenes get violent and Maud finds herself in the middle of the fight, facing time in jail, forced to give up campaigning for equal rights. Now the movement is stronger than ever will look to get the equality for women through.
Thoughts on Suffragette
Characters – Maud Watts is a quiet laundry employee, married with a child, she gets caught in the middle of one of the campaigns for equal rights, she ends up joining the movement as a foot soldier knowing what is right for women everywhere. Violet Miller is one of the foot soldiers that recruits Maud, she has been fight for a while now and knows that she wants the best for her daughter. Edith Ellyn offers a cover for the meetings to make things right for women, she has been campaigning for years next to the leader, Emmeline Pankhurst has been in hiding for years as she keeps the movement going strong to make sure women can get the right to vote. Inspector Arthur Steed is trying to stop the movement from taking over, he puts the women to the test to see who the strong ones are.
Performances – Carey Mulligan is great in the leading role, we see her confliction with Maud’s decisions being made. Helena Bonham Carter is great too which puts her in a supportive role. Anne-Marie Duff is the actress I hadn’t heard of before and she goes toe to toe with the bigger names. Meryl Streep does have a small role in this film, but that doesn’t hide her importance to the story. Brendan Gleeson makes for a good law man in any movie, this is no different.
Story – The story shows the struggles British women had to get the chance to vote, just vote something men had been doing for years. It leaves you to wonder just how this took such a long time to change in a world where we are all meant to be equal. The bravery these women showed shines through because they faced being shamed by their families, the main story follows how Maud Watts went into the world and how it affected her life. While I do understand this is looking at the women’s battle, you do feel like there would have been male supporters in this fight too and them speaking up would have been just as taboo to the ones who wouldn’t look down on them.
Biopic/History – This is a moment, a movement in history that should never have had to happen, but the importance to what it achieved is remarkable.
Settings – The settings show how the everyday location were important to make this movement happen, we feel like we are in 1912 London.
Scene of the Movie – The speech.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – You would think men would have supported this too.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at an important moment in time, it shows how women worked, fought and battled to get equality in Britain.
Overall: Important look at history.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/meryl-streep-weekend-suffragette-2015/
When the latest campaign gets rejected scenes get violent and Maud finds herself in the middle of the fight, facing time in jail, forced to give up campaigning for equal rights. Now the movement is stronger than ever will look to get the equality for women through.
Thoughts on Suffragette
Characters – Maud Watts is a quiet laundry employee, married with a child, she gets caught in the middle of one of the campaigns for equal rights, she ends up joining the movement as a foot soldier knowing what is right for women everywhere. Violet Miller is one of the foot soldiers that recruits Maud, she has been fight for a while now and knows that she wants the best for her daughter. Edith Ellyn offers a cover for the meetings to make things right for women, she has been campaigning for years next to the leader, Emmeline Pankhurst has been in hiding for years as she keeps the movement going strong to make sure women can get the right to vote. Inspector Arthur Steed is trying to stop the movement from taking over, he puts the women to the test to see who the strong ones are.
Performances – Carey Mulligan is great in the leading role, we see her confliction with Maud’s decisions being made. Helena Bonham Carter is great too which puts her in a supportive role. Anne-Marie Duff is the actress I hadn’t heard of before and she goes toe to toe with the bigger names. Meryl Streep does have a small role in this film, but that doesn’t hide her importance to the story. Brendan Gleeson makes for a good law man in any movie, this is no different.
Story – The story shows the struggles British women had to get the chance to vote, just vote something men had been doing for years. It leaves you to wonder just how this took such a long time to change in a world where we are all meant to be equal. The bravery these women showed shines through because they faced being shamed by their families, the main story follows how Maud Watts went into the world and how it affected her life. While I do understand this is looking at the women’s battle, you do feel like there would have been male supporters in this fight too and them speaking up would have been just as taboo to the ones who wouldn’t look down on them.
Biopic/History – This is a moment, a movement in history that should never have had to happen, but the importance to what it achieved is remarkable.
Settings – The settings show how the everyday location were important to make this movement happen, we feel like we are in 1912 London.
Scene of the Movie – The speech.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – You would think men would have supported this too.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at an important moment in time, it shows how women worked, fought and battled to get equality in Britain.
Overall: Important look at history.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/meryl-streep-weekend-suffragette-2015/
Fix My Truck: 4x4 Offroad Truck Mechanic Simulator
Games
App
Tear down, fix, mod, build, repair and totally upgrade an awesome pickup truck by installing the...
Cyberline Racing
Games and Entertainment
App
Cyberline Racing is the triumph of the death racing genre! This game combines action packed shooting...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Fins ain’t what they used to be.
OK, OK, so I must be about the last person in the country – at least, those who want to see this at the cinema – who actually has! Maybe its something about the summer slipping into autumn that made me crave for one last summer blockbuster hoorah! In any case, I feel like a bit of a traitor, since I was very scathing about this film’s trailer when it came out. But – do you know – as a brainless piece of popcorn entertainment, I quite enjoyed it!
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.