Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tomorrow (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The film had me at "brief strong sex" on the title card.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aeon Flux (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: We get a future world where humans have been nearly wiped out by a virus, good start. We have information about a dictator who has taken over because he had the cure of the virus and making sure his family stays in charge, Aeon is hired to kill him so a change can happen, but the first of many twists stops this. We have two people that both sides in a potential war want dead but these two hold the secret that could save mankind forever. We have seen it all before and in the future world we struggle to see a truly original idea, the twists save this from being plain boring but with very little use of supporting characters we don’t get much here. (6/10)
Actor Review
Charlize Theron: Aeon Flux deadly assassin who is assigned to kill Trevor Goodchild, but when she has a past connection with him she helps him uncover a truth that can change the future forever. Solid performance trying to make something out of a little known source material. (7/10)
aeon
Marton Csokas: Trevor Goodchild leader of the people who has cured the remaining people of a deadly virus but he is still working to uncover a truth that could save the peoples real future. Good performance in the supporting scientist role. (7/10)
trvor
Johnny Lee Miller: Oren Goodchild brother of Trevor who has always supported him but when the future could change he plans to take over and keep things running as before. Good villainous role wanting to make sure he can live forever. (7/10)
ohnny
Director Review: Karyn Kusama – Creates a basic entertaining film that never really challenges the audience. (5/10)
Action: Plenty of action but most is the same each time. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Interesting look at the future after a virus that looks at many different parts of it including improving surviving. (7/10)
Settings: We are in one city for the whole film but it really doesn’t get used as well as it should have been. (6/10)
Special Effects: Basic special effects used in Aeon Flux with most of it being upgraded technology. (7/10)
Suggestion: I think this could be tried, it isn’t as good as it could be but can be entertaining at times. (Try It)
Best Part: Aeon entering a poisonous garden.
Worst Part: Been here seen that.
Action Scene Of The Film: Final battle
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $52 Million
Budget: $62 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: The future is flux.
Overall: Fun but not original action
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/16/aeon-flux-2005/
Actor Review
Charlize Theron: Aeon Flux deadly assassin who is assigned to kill Trevor Goodchild, but when she has a past connection with him she helps him uncover a truth that can change the future forever. Solid performance trying to make something out of a little known source material. (7/10)
aeon
Marton Csokas: Trevor Goodchild leader of the people who has cured the remaining people of a deadly virus but he is still working to uncover a truth that could save the peoples real future. Good performance in the supporting scientist role. (7/10)
trvor
Johnny Lee Miller: Oren Goodchild brother of Trevor who has always supported him but when the future could change he plans to take over and keep things running as before. Good villainous role wanting to make sure he can live forever. (7/10)
ohnny
Director Review: Karyn Kusama – Creates a basic entertaining film that never really challenges the audience. (5/10)
Action: Plenty of action but most is the same each time. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Interesting look at the future after a virus that looks at many different parts of it including improving surviving. (7/10)
Settings: We are in one city for the whole film but it really doesn’t get used as well as it should have been. (6/10)
Special Effects: Basic special effects used in Aeon Flux with most of it being upgraded technology. (7/10)
Suggestion: I think this could be tried, it isn’t as good as it could be but can be entertaining at times. (Try It)
Best Part: Aeon entering a poisonous garden.
Worst Part: Been here seen that.
Action Scene Of The Film: Final battle
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $52 Million
Budget: $62 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: The future is flux.
Overall: Fun but not original action
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/16/aeon-flux-2005/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
Well researched historical background (2 more)
Intriguing characters
Jamie Fraser
Like many other reviewers of this book, the genre of this story is not my first go to. This aside, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Outlander.
The novel is set in two different time periods, the first the aftermath of the Second World War, the second during the 1740s and the build up to the battle of Culloden. One of the strengths of this book, is that Diana Gabaldon has researched the historical settings of this novel well, and paints a fantastic image of the times for the reader. With a background in the study of history, I am normally the first to start picking faults in the historiography of a story, however in this case, I was unable to, and instead able to relax into the plot line itself. The novel also encouraged me to carry out further research into Scotland in the 1740s and even visit the Culloden battlefield (and of course the Fraser stone).
The characters in the novel are well thought out and all have their faults as well as strengths (which in my eyes makes them more believable). Clare, the main character is a strong willed and independent woman, however can be outspoken before her time. Jamie is a character that see through Clare’s eyes and as such, we understand why she falls in love with him, is at times held by the constraints about how men and women should act in marriage during the 1740s, and struggles to cope with Clare’s independence.
As readers we are led through a story of 1740s clan culture in Scotland (including the brutal behaviour of the British officer Jack Randall), as well as the emerging love story between Jamie and Clare. This is ultimately a love story, but sexual scenes are much more subtle in text than the dramatisation of the TV series. As is often the case with books that have been dramatised onto the screen, we also get a much deeper insight into the feelings and emotions of a character, which often struggles to translate onto screen.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and eagerly await picking up the sequel to find out what will happen next to Clare, Jamie and Frank.
The novel is set in two different time periods, the first the aftermath of the Second World War, the second during the 1740s and the build up to the battle of Culloden. One of the strengths of this book, is that Diana Gabaldon has researched the historical settings of this novel well, and paints a fantastic image of the times for the reader. With a background in the study of history, I am normally the first to start picking faults in the historiography of a story, however in this case, I was unable to, and instead able to relax into the plot line itself. The novel also encouraged me to carry out further research into Scotland in the 1740s and even visit the Culloden battlefield (and of course the Fraser stone).
The characters in the novel are well thought out and all have their faults as well as strengths (which in my eyes makes them more believable). Clare, the main character is a strong willed and independent woman, however can be outspoken before her time. Jamie is a character that see through Clare’s eyes and as such, we understand why she falls in love with him, is at times held by the constraints about how men and women should act in marriage during the 1740s, and struggles to cope with Clare’s independence.
As readers we are led through a story of 1740s clan culture in Scotland (including the brutal behaviour of the British officer Jack Randall), as well as the emerging love story between Jamie and Clare. This is ultimately a love story, but sexual scenes are much more subtle in text than the dramatisation of the TV series. As is often the case with books that have been dramatised onto the screen, we also get a much deeper insight into the feelings and emotions of a character, which often struggles to translate onto screen.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and eagerly await picking up the sequel to find out what will happen next to Clare, Jamie and Frank.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Girl King (The Girl King, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>I wanted to like this book.</strong></h2>
In fact, I wanted to love <em>The Girl King</em>. Sisters! Rivals! Betrayal! Family! War! Mimi Yu's debut smells of an action-packed adventure with sibling rivalry, magic and court politics that would be hard to put down. Bonus points for #OwnVoices.
<h2><strong>But much disappointment has occurred.</strong></h2>
Bookwyrms, much disappointment has indeed occurred. I spent loads of time deciding if I should continue trekking my way through <em>The Girl King</em> or calling it quits. Eventually, at 50% through, I decided to call it a day because we don't have time for books that aren't enjoyable.
<h2><strong>We're not going to talk much about the problems involved.</strong></h2>
"Slipskin" feels awfully weird for a shifter/werewolf influence, bookwyrms. Sure, it's "slipping" out of one's "skin" and into another "slipping" into another "skin." But is it just me, or do I think of something gross and slimy at the thought? 🤔
And let's not get started with "pink." I legit thought of newly born babies.
<a href="https://vickywhoreads.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/arc-the-girl-king-by-mimi-yu/">Vicky from Vicky Who Reads</a> has this covered in more detail in her review. (I guarantee you her post is 100x more professional.)
<h2><strong>I didn't connect with anything in <em>The Girl King</em>.</strong></h2>
Sure, I went to at least halfway through the book, but it was a whole lot of back and forth reading between this book and another one. I didn't care about the storyline or the world, even though I could relate to some of the cultural influences included. Despite enjoying Lu's fierceness, I ultimately didn't care about Lu or any of the other characters involved. I found myself interested in continuing the book at some points, but at the same time, I didn't really care.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/the-girl-king-by-mimi-yu/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>I wanted to like this book.</strong></h2>
In fact, I wanted to love <em>The Girl King</em>. Sisters! Rivals! Betrayal! Family! War! Mimi Yu's debut smells of an action-packed adventure with sibling rivalry, magic and court politics that would be hard to put down. Bonus points for #OwnVoices.
<h2><strong>But much disappointment has occurred.</strong></h2>
Bookwyrms, much disappointment has indeed occurred. I spent loads of time deciding if I should continue trekking my way through <em>The Girl King</em> or calling it quits. Eventually, at 50% through, I decided to call it a day because we don't have time for books that aren't enjoyable.
<h2><strong>We're not going to talk much about the problems involved.</strong></h2>
"Slipskin" feels awfully weird for a shifter/werewolf influence, bookwyrms. Sure, it's "slipping" out of one's "skin" and into another "slipping" into another "skin." But is it just me, or do I think of something gross and slimy at the thought? 🤔
And let's not get started with "pink." I legit thought of newly born babies.
<a href="https://vickywhoreads.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/arc-the-girl-king-by-mimi-yu/">Vicky from Vicky Who Reads</a> has this covered in more detail in her review. (I guarantee you her post is 100x more professional.)
<h2><strong>I didn't connect with anything in <em>The Girl King</em>.</strong></h2>
Sure, I went to at least halfway through the book, but it was a whole lot of back and forth reading between this book and another one. I didn't care about the storyline or the world, even though I could relate to some of the cultural influences included. Despite enjoying Lu's fierceness, I ultimately didn't care about Lu or any of the other characters involved. I found myself interested in continuing the book at some points, but at the same time, I didn't really care.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/the-girl-king-by-mimi-yu/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Don't Come Crying Home: A Boy's Life in Dr Barnardo's Homes
Book
At age two, one December day in 1943, Eric is handed over to a stranger, the Reverend Brightman. The...
RA
Rockne and Jones: Notre Dame, USC, and the Greatest Rivalry of the Roaring Twenties
Book
Notre Dame's rallying cry was once "Win one for the Gipper." e football series with Army that...