Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated I Am Wrath (2016) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: I Am Wrath starts as we learn the war on crime was getting out of hand, but the Governor has started winning against the gangs. Stanley (Travolta) returns home after a business trip meeting his wife Vivian (De Mornay) where the two are attack with Vivian murdered.
With the police not getting the suspects, Stanley turns to a previous life working his former partner Dennis (Meloni) as a black-ops soldier that will stop at nothing to extract revenge on the people who murdered his wife.
Thoughts on I Am Wrath
Characters – Stanley is a mile-mannered businessman working in the car industry. When is wife is murdered in a senseless crime, he returns to a former life on a warpath with the gang involved as the cold-hearted killer. Dennis is the former partner of Stanley’s that still has the connections in the underworld, he helps Stanley in his revenge mission, he supplies the weapons and details of who were responsible. Abbie is the daughter of Stanley that tries to be there for her father while continue on her adult life. Detective Gibson is the lead on the case, he is forced to let the suspect go believing he will get himself killed soon enough.
Performances – John Travolta is solid enough in this leading role, we do get to see a large number of 50+ year old actors going into this action films, he isn’t the best, but he isn’t the worst. Christopher Meloni plays the best character in the film and is easily the one you want to see more of in this film. Amanda Schull is fine in her role, we need a figure that isn’t involved in the action and she offers it. The rest of the cast bring us the targets for the most part and give us generic bad guy performances.
Story – The story follows one man that goes to war on the gangs of his city to learn who killed his wife and get revenge. When it comes to the story this isn’t the most original, it is extremely watchable for a time killing hour and half, it doesn’t test the audience and doesn’t have any twists along the way. This is one of those stories that is mostly forgettable over bad and checks all the boxes needed to make the audience watch.
Action/Crime – The action is filled with old man action style that Liam Neeson made famous, it works for the film with Meloni getting the best sequence. The crime throws us into the world where gangs are controlling the streets with drug sales going through the roof and one man doing anything to get revenge.
Settings – The film takes us to a city overrun by crime and shows us how people can be forced into actions to get revenge for the lost loved one.
Scene of the Movie – Dennis versus the thugs in the shop.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We have seen this before.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic action film that will keep you entertained through the whole film without being anything overly original.
Overall: Easy to watch action film.
With the police not getting the suspects, Stanley turns to a previous life working his former partner Dennis (Meloni) as a black-ops soldier that will stop at nothing to extract revenge on the people who murdered his wife.
Thoughts on I Am Wrath
Characters – Stanley is a mile-mannered businessman working in the car industry. When is wife is murdered in a senseless crime, he returns to a former life on a warpath with the gang involved as the cold-hearted killer. Dennis is the former partner of Stanley’s that still has the connections in the underworld, he helps Stanley in his revenge mission, he supplies the weapons and details of who were responsible. Abbie is the daughter of Stanley that tries to be there for her father while continue on her adult life. Detective Gibson is the lead on the case, he is forced to let the suspect go believing he will get himself killed soon enough.
Performances – John Travolta is solid enough in this leading role, we do get to see a large number of 50+ year old actors going into this action films, he isn’t the best, but he isn’t the worst. Christopher Meloni plays the best character in the film and is easily the one you want to see more of in this film. Amanda Schull is fine in her role, we need a figure that isn’t involved in the action and she offers it. The rest of the cast bring us the targets for the most part and give us generic bad guy performances.
Story – The story follows one man that goes to war on the gangs of his city to learn who killed his wife and get revenge. When it comes to the story this isn’t the most original, it is extremely watchable for a time killing hour and half, it doesn’t test the audience and doesn’t have any twists along the way. This is one of those stories that is mostly forgettable over bad and checks all the boxes needed to make the audience watch.
Action/Crime – The action is filled with old man action style that Liam Neeson made famous, it works for the film with Meloni getting the best sequence. The crime throws us into the world where gangs are controlling the streets with drug sales going through the roof and one man doing anything to get revenge.
Settings – The film takes us to a city overrun by crime and shows us how people can be forced into actions to get revenge for the lost loved one.
Scene of the Movie – Dennis versus the thugs in the shop.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We have seen this before.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic action film that will keep you entertained through the whole film without being anything overly original.
Overall: Easy to watch action film.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated Beast: The Beginning (Hate Story, #1) in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
<a href="http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/rosella1974/media/BookReview_zpsdq9da8x6.jpg.html"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/rosella1974/BookReview_zpsdq9da8x6.jpg~original"; border="0" alt=" photo BookReview_zpsdq9da8x6.jpg"/></a>
🌟🌟🌟🌟Stars
I loved Beast: The Beginning (Hate Story, #1). From the minute I started reading This I was lost in another world, one of blood, hate and organised crime.
Where being bad was good and innocence is soon corrupted and lost forever.
So beast is about Frankie Notte and Anteros Drago a boss in the Pavoni family.
Frankie trades herself for her Papas life accompanying the beast to a fate unknown.
The Beast himself has every intention of selling Frankie to the Institute to be sold to the highest bidder.
But sometimes the best-laid plans can go awry, as is what happens here, leaving the beast with a slave that he's not quite sure what to do with.
Now, this was described as a dark read, and there is plenty of evidence of that darkness scattered throughout Beast, but behind closed doors, the Beast becomes increasingly fascinated with his new toy and there is at times a surprising gentleness to some of his interactions with Frankie.
He continues to try and keep up a front in front of his wolves as they start to lose confidence in their leader, questioning his actions towards an inconsequential Slave.
There is also a lot of secrets and intrigue running beneath the surface and rumours running amok concerning the Pavoni Princess, even Beast himself starts to listen and doubt what is real.
So dissecting our two main honchos here.
Anteros Drago/ Beast first, he's Ruthless, cruel, seemingly without mercy, he wants to break Frankie reducing her to nothing, he even initially tells her she is nothing.
His Black-heart is dark to the core, he lives for the job having spent years planning, with his wolves there rise to the top of the family from mere foot soldiers.
He appears to have no weaknesses. that is until Frankie slowly starts to thaw his ice-cold heart, not that you would major notice this as he's still a complete bastard to Frankie subjecting her to awful situations to teach her her place and generally playing mind games, belittling her at every turn while fighting his growing affections and deceiving himself regarding his feelings towards her.
Now Frankie herself, she is multi-faceted in regards to what she portrays outwardly.
Shes, not a worldly girl having been ill much of her teenage years, but From day one despite her apprehension, Frankie refuses to back down, sometimes even stupidly goading Beast, She grows so much in character throughout this story, seeming to get stronger with each new trial experienced, she also tries daily to fight her strange attraction towards the Beast that she swears she hates.
When we get the final satisfying reveal, setting us up for book two all players have been moved around into their new places almost like a chess match.
Or maybe even a new blood war.
You can see straight off that the next instalment is going to be very different in regards to changing tides.
So Really well done to the author I can't wait to get stuck into Beauty: The End (Hate Story, #2).
This may have been my first Mary Catherine Gebhard book, but definitely won't be my last.
It's been quite a while since I indulged myself in a good Dark romance and though this was not as dark as some I have read I found this a great addition to its genre.
So Give this a go if you like a good anti-hero romance, happy reading.
<a href="http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/rosella1974/media/images%205_zpskbahd7a0.jpg.html"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/rosella1974/images%205_zpskbahd7a0.jpg~original"; border="0" alt=" photo images 5_zpskbahd7a0.jpg"/></a>
Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/ (less)
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
<a href="http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/rosella1974/media/BookReview_zpsdq9da8x6.jpg.html"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/rosella1974/BookReview_zpsdq9da8x6.jpg~original"; border="0" alt=" photo BookReview_zpsdq9da8x6.jpg"/></a>
🌟🌟🌟🌟Stars
I loved Beast: The Beginning (Hate Story, #1). From the minute I started reading This I was lost in another world, one of blood, hate and organised crime.
Where being bad was good and innocence is soon corrupted and lost forever.
So beast is about Frankie Notte and Anteros Drago a boss in the Pavoni family.
Frankie trades herself for her Papas life accompanying the beast to a fate unknown.
The Beast himself has every intention of selling Frankie to the Institute to be sold to the highest bidder.
But sometimes the best-laid plans can go awry, as is what happens here, leaving the beast with a slave that he's not quite sure what to do with.
Now, this was described as a dark read, and there is plenty of evidence of that darkness scattered throughout Beast, but behind closed doors, the Beast becomes increasingly fascinated with his new toy and there is at times a surprising gentleness to some of his interactions with Frankie.
He continues to try and keep up a front in front of his wolves as they start to lose confidence in their leader, questioning his actions towards an inconsequential Slave.
There is also a lot of secrets and intrigue running beneath the surface and rumours running amok concerning the Pavoni Princess, even Beast himself starts to listen and doubt what is real.
So dissecting our two main honchos here.
Anteros Drago/ Beast first, he's Ruthless, cruel, seemingly without mercy, he wants to break Frankie reducing her to nothing, he even initially tells her she is nothing.
His Black-heart is dark to the core, he lives for the job having spent years planning, with his wolves there rise to the top of the family from mere foot soldiers.
He appears to have no weaknesses. that is until Frankie slowly starts to thaw his ice-cold heart, not that you would major notice this as he's still a complete bastard to Frankie subjecting her to awful situations to teach her her place and generally playing mind games, belittling her at every turn while fighting his growing affections and deceiving himself regarding his feelings towards her.
Now Frankie herself, she is multi-faceted in regards to what she portrays outwardly.
Shes, not a worldly girl having been ill much of her teenage years, but From day one despite her apprehension, Frankie refuses to back down, sometimes even stupidly goading Beast, She grows so much in character throughout this story, seeming to get stronger with each new trial experienced, she also tries daily to fight her strange attraction towards the Beast that she swears she hates.
When we get the final satisfying reveal, setting us up for book two all players have been moved around into their new places almost like a chess match.
Or maybe even a new blood war.
You can see straight off that the next instalment is going to be very different in regards to changing tides.
So Really well done to the author I can't wait to get stuck into Beauty: The End (Hate Story, #2).
This may have been my first Mary Catherine Gebhard book, but definitely won't be my last.
It's been quite a while since I indulged myself in a good Dark romance and though this was not as dark as some I have read I found this a great addition to its genre.
So Give this a go if you like a good anti-hero romance, happy reading.
<a href="http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/rosella1974/media/images%205_zpskbahd7a0.jpg.html"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/rosella1974/images%205_zpskbahd7a0.jpg~original"; border="0" alt=" photo images 5_zpskbahd7a0.jpg"/></a>
Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/ (less)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I had a dream. A sob. A sing.
You remember in “Aliens” when Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) fought through hell and high water against that “bitch” to protect the youngster Newt (Carrie Henn)? And then how betrayed you felt in that emotional investment at the start of “Alien 3”?
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has anyone got an aspirin?
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone I told you this but I’m a little bit of a Transformers fanboy. As a child I had many of the series’ toys and adored the animated series. Heck, I even have an Optimus Prime bobblehead next to my bed.
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated Things a Bright Girl Can Do in Books
Feb 10, 2018
THINGS A BRIGHT GIRL CAN DO by SALLY NICHOLLS
In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst founded a new organisation called 'The Woman's Social and Political Union’ because she like many other women believed that they should be equal to men and be allowed a vote!
Although women over thirty did get the vote in 1918 - after the bill was passed. It wasn't until 1928 that all women got the vote. But unfortunately, Emmeline Pankhurst died before she got to see this happen.
When WWI broke out men had to go and fight, leaving their jobs to the woman. This was the start of women getting more opportunities. Even though they weren't being paid the same, they were still happy to be doing something to help. (Though that's a different story)
But this whole having a job, and helping with the war was only for the meantime, because after the war men wanted their jobs back!
Things a Bright Girl Can Do is about three girls who live in this time. Three girls who want to do more with their lives. Three girls who want freedom and the chance to be different.
Evelyn, May, and Nell.
Evelyn is seventeen and has dreamt of going to a university like her brother, but is unable to do so because, for the simple fact, she's a girl!
But mind you, she is probably smarter than her brother. Or any boy for that matter. So what does she do? She joins the suffragettes! And by doing this she see’s exactly what it's like to be a suffragette and what they do first hand. Though it's not as nice as it seems. She takes part in a hunger strike while she's in prison; like many suffragettes before her. She gets ill afterward and though she did what she believed was right, she soon realized that it wasn't such a great idea.
But in some ways, it made her a better person in the future because she knew exactly what it was like and why they were fighting for their rights.
May is fifteen and has been a part of the suffragettes along with her mother for a while now. She campaigns and she fights for the rights of women in a peaceful way. By handing out flyers, by going to meetings and talks. Again like Evelyn, she knows what it's like to have money and to be in a better situation than some women who don't even have that.
Nell, who’s grown up not knowing money, she's always tried to work and help her mother with whatever she can. She later meets May and the two of them fall in love and dream of a better world. She joins the cause of ‘Women's Rights’ and fights for them. Because why should men get everything?
All three girls are very different and all want something out of their vote. They all become a part of the suffragettes in their own different ways.
Sally Nicholls gives you a great insight into the past, bringing it to life again. Questioning what life was like back then, for woman and the government. She does all this by turning three stories into a reality that we all now take for granted. Even now women don't use their votes.
My opinion is that no matter whether you like politics or even believe in them, you should always use your vote. That's what I think anyway. For the simple fact, women died for your right to vote. It's your life as well you should use your vote to make the world better. To have a say.
From the suffragettes to WWI and it's 'we can do it’ attitude, this book is amazing inside and out. From the facts and the stories within its pages to the history lesson of fighting for your rights - to what women did to help in the war, you need to try this book.
So would you be one of the suffragettes, or did you have one in your family? It would be interesting to know.
Just remember, we can all do it.
Love, Christina ?
Although women over thirty did get the vote in 1918 - after the bill was passed. It wasn't until 1928 that all women got the vote. But unfortunately, Emmeline Pankhurst died before she got to see this happen.
When WWI broke out men had to go and fight, leaving their jobs to the woman. This was the start of women getting more opportunities. Even though they weren't being paid the same, they were still happy to be doing something to help. (Though that's a different story)
But this whole having a job, and helping with the war was only for the meantime, because after the war men wanted their jobs back!
Things a Bright Girl Can Do is about three girls who live in this time. Three girls who want to do more with their lives. Three girls who want freedom and the chance to be different.
Evelyn, May, and Nell.
Evelyn is seventeen and has dreamt of going to a university like her brother, but is unable to do so because, for the simple fact, she's a girl!
But mind you, she is probably smarter than her brother. Or any boy for that matter. So what does she do? She joins the suffragettes! And by doing this she see’s exactly what it's like to be a suffragette and what they do first hand. Though it's not as nice as it seems. She takes part in a hunger strike while she's in prison; like many suffragettes before her. She gets ill afterward and though she did what she believed was right, she soon realized that it wasn't such a great idea.
But in some ways, it made her a better person in the future because she knew exactly what it was like and why they were fighting for their rights.
May is fifteen and has been a part of the suffragettes along with her mother for a while now. She campaigns and she fights for the rights of women in a peaceful way. By handing out flyers, by going to meetings and talks. Again like Evelyn, she knows what it's like to have money and to be in a better situation than some women who don't even have that.
Nell, who’s grown up not knowing money, she's always tried to work and help her mother with whatever she can. She later meets May and the two of them fall in love and dream of a better world. She joins the cause of ‘Women's Rights’ and fights for them. Because why should men get everything?
All three girls are very different and all want something out of their vote. They all become a part of the suffragettes in their own different ways.
Sally Nicholls gives you a great insight into the past, bringing it to life again. Questioning what life was like back then, for woman and the government. She does all this by turning three stories into a reality that we all now take for granted. Even now women don't use their votes.
My opinion is that no matter whether you like politics or even believe in them, you should always use your vote. That's what I think anyway. For the simple fact, women died for your right to vote. It's your life as well you should use your vote to make the world better. To have a say.
From the suffragettes to WWI and it's 'we can do it’ attitude, this book is amazing inside and out. From the facts and the stories within its pages to the history lesson of fighting for your rights - to what women did to help in the war, you need to try this book.
So would you be one of the suffragettes, or did you have one in your family? It would be interesting to know.
Just remember, we can all do it.
Love, Christina ?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Call of Duty WWII in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The long running and very popular Call of Duty series has gone back to where it all began for the latest entry into the series. Call of Duty: WW2 returns the series to where the early games in the series were set and looks to restore its legacy as the best-selling series on the planet in doing so.
Last year’s Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare did not sell as well as other in the series had in recent years, and many fans were upset or divided over a futuristic setting that involved spaceships, energy weapons, and futuristic locations and technology.
It should be noted that the series has three developers working on games so developer Sledgehammer likely started work on the game before Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare shipped so the return to WW2 was something long in the planning.
The game opens with D-Day and players play as a young Private who is thrown headfirst into the conflict and learns the horrors of war as well as duty, honor, and sacrifice through his missions and interactions with members of his platoon.
Over the course of the missions, players will battle in highly-detailed maps and locales ranging from forests, bunkers, beaches, and bombed out cities as the Allies advance deeper and deeper into enemy held locales. The various locales for the game are so highly-detailed that they seem right out of a movie and would be a dream come true for location scouts looking for filming locations.
As anyone who has played a call of Duty game knows, they will be faced with waves of enemies to fight off as well as the usual stealth and vehicle missions. This time out there are a couple of driving missions as well as a clever one in a tank and one airborne fighter escort.
The attention to detail is very good as enemy Panzer tanks can take any fire from your tank head on, but have weaker armor in the bank which leads players to have to flank the enemy to survive.
Another new wrinkle is the health system which does not regenerate in the story mode and instead requires players to take cover and use a first aid kit in order to heal. The multiplayer portion does use a regenerative system so players can avoid any major disruptions in battle.
I really liked Josh Duhamel as the rough Sargent with a backstory. He was a very interesting character that kept me guessing as to his motivations and next moves as the story advanced.
Players could also call in ammo, mortar strikes, and health by requesting them from select members of their platoon. This could be tricky as when pinned down, having to move to another character to get needed items added to the challenge.
The weaponry was appropriate for the time and I had to adjust to slower load times, accuracy issues, and such with older tech, but it did give me a much greater level of immersion.
While I did enjoy the solo campaign, it did at times seem very familiar and as if I had seen and played some of it all before. I guess that is the trick with a series that has run as long as Call of Duty has as certain aspects of the gameplay are expected and while locations, weapons, locations, and characters may change, some things are going to be constant throughout the series.
The multiplayer aspects of the game really shine as not only are there numerous multiplayer modes, players can now pick a class such as Airborne, Recon, etc. which each have their own weapons and abilities and allow players to pick a division that best matches their abilities and gameplay style.
This comes in very handy in the new War mode where teams much battle one another to accomplish various objectives. Such as escorting tanks, protecting or stealing gas, and taking or defending key locales. My only issue is that this mode and many maps are camp fests where people with scoped rifles can easily hide in the back part of a map and pick off players as they spawn or enter the map. It seems far more pronounced in this game and leads to some frustrations. There is also the matter of iffy hit detection where players take half a clip from a machine gun point blank and yet can absorb them and one shit kill a player all while you unload on them.
There is also a very good Zombie mode where players take on wave after wave of undead soldiers as they attempt to get power restored and activate technology. The speed of the game is intense, the enemies numerous, and the ability to arm, armor up, and accessories your character is key as is having a good team around you.
As one person said that is Call of Duty and you know what you are in for if you have played any of the prior games. As such Call of Duty: World War 2 is not a radical new direction for the series, but rather a return to what made the series and is like slipping into a comfy pair of slippers after a long day., Familiar and comfortable and is in my opinion what the series needed.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/06/call-duty-ww2/
Last year’s Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare did not sell as well as other in the series had in recent years, and many fans were upset or divided over a futuristic setting that involved spaceships, energy weapons, and futuristic locations and technology.
It should be noted that the series has three developers working on games so developer Sledgehammer likely started work on the game before Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare shipped so the return to WW2 was something long in the planning.
The game opens with D-Day and players play as a young Private who is thrown headfirst into the conflict and learns the horrors of war as well as duty, honor, and sacrifice through his missions and interactions with members of his platoon.
Over the course of the missions, players will battle in highly-detailed maps and locales ranging from forests, bunkers, beaches, and bombed out cities as the Allies advance deeper and deeper into enemy held locales. The various locales for the game are so highly-detailed that they seem right out of a movie and would be a dream come true for location scouts looking for filming locations.
As anyone who has played a call of Duty game knows, they will be faced with waves of enemies to fight off as well as the usual stealth and vehicle missions. This time out there are a couple of driving missions as well as a clever one in a tank and one airborne fighter escort.
The attention to detail is very good as enemy Panzer tanks can take any fire from your tank head on, but have weaker armor in the bank which leads players to have to flank the enemy to survive.
Another new wrinkle is the health system which does not regenerate in the story mode and instead requires players to take cover and use a first aid kit in order to heal. The multiplayer portion does use a regenerative system so players can avoid any major disruptions in battle.
I really liked Josh Duhamel as the rough Sargent with a backstory. He was a very interesting character that kept me guessing as to his motivations and next moves as the story advanced.
Players could also call in ammo, mortar strikes, and health by requesting them from select members of their platoon. This could be tricky as when pinned down, having to move to another character to get needed items added to the challenge.
The weaponry was appropriate for the time and I had to adjust to slower load times, accuracy issues, and such with older tech, but it did give me a much greater level of immersion.
While I did enjoy the solo campaign, it did at times seem very familiar and as if I had seen and played some of it all before. I guess that is the trick with a series that has run as long as Call of Duty has as certain aspects of the gameplay are expected and while locations, weapons, locations, and characters may change, some things are going to be constant throughout the series.
The multiplayer aspects of the game really shine as not only are there numerous multiplayer modes, players can now pick a class such as Airborne, Recon, etc. which each have their own weapons and abilities and allow players to pick a division that best matches their abilities and gameplay style.
This comes in very handy in the new War mode where teams much battle one another to accomplish various objectives. Such as escorting tanks, protecting or stealing gas, and taking or defending key locales. My only issue is that this mode and many maps are camp fests where people with scoped rifles can easily hide in the back part of a map and pick off players as they spawn or enter the map. It seems far more pronounced in this game and leads to some frustrations. There is also the matter of iffy hit detection where players take half a clip from a machine gun point blank and yet can absorb them and one shit kill a player all while you unload on them.
There is also a very good Zombie mode where players take on wave after wave of undead soldiers as they attempt to get power restored and activate technology. The speed of the game is intense, the enemies numerous, and the ability to arm, armor up, and accessories your character is key as is having a good team around you.
As one person said that is Call of Duty and you know what you are in for if you have played any of the prior games. As such Call of Duty: World War 2 is not a radical new direction for the series, but rather a return to what made the series and is like slipping into a comfy pair of slippers after a long day., Familiar and comfortable and is in my opinion what the series needed.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/06/call-duty-ww2/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Team America: World Police (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
AMERICA! F**K YEAH!
The theme’s lyrics sum up this movie as well as any could have. Made in the midst of the War On Terror in 2004, a satire was needed and who better to provide one than the satirical genius’ Trey Parker and Matt Stone, best known for South Park. On the surface, this looks like a straight forward bawdy adult puppet parody, taking the mickey out of Bruckheimer’s blockbusters, Thunderbirds and the reputation being acquired by the U.S. over the past 30 years but reaching boiling point over the last decade, certainly in a post 9/11 world.But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
JT (287 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Zombies, they’ve been around for a while now in all shapes and sizes, yet like the walking undead the genre shows no signs of dying out. Director Marc Forster teams up with Brad Pitt for a zombie horror (if you can really call it that) which travels the world in search of a vaccine that will stop the world’s population being wiped out.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
