Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Edward Norton [SPOILER ALERT] raised a smirk at the end of Primal Fear to reveal himself as a sick and twisted killer it capped a sublime performance from an actor that would go on to do bigger and better things.
Primal Fear was a courtroom thriller that held you all the way to the bitter end, and as that solemn expression washed over poor Richard Gere‘s face at the end you could only stand up and applaud.
The Lincoln Lawyer travels down a similar premise, but despite all the twists and turns in a plot based on the novel by Michael Connelly it fails to keep the tension high enough to satisfy us to a pay off that is only blip on the thriller spectrum, I personally wanted something bigger.
Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone whose comfortable in this type of atmosphere
McConaughey plays Mick Haller a defence attourney working out the back of his sleak looking black Lincoln, and whose job it is to pretty much keep the scum of the earth on the streets, something which has obviously damaged his marraige with Maggie McPherson (Tomei). His reputation though is flipped over mid way through and we suddenly get an insight into a man that is as much a doting father as he is a great defence attorney.
Well alright, alright, alright!
When he’s asked to defend rich boy Louis Roulet (Phillippe) for beating a prostitute to within an inch of her life he suddenly gets a conscience when he realizes that the clean cut image might be a façade to something much more sinister. The film itself is not bad at all, and in parts it’s actually very good with McConaughey calling on his supporting cast for help which includes John Leguizamo and William H. Macy.
McConaughey’s court presence is smooth and charismatic, which would probably make him quite a good litigator in the real world. Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone who’s comfortable in this type of atmosphere.
Phillippe is certainly no Norton, and you know right off the bat that he’s as guilty as hell but its a good turn from him nonetheless. As thrillers go its up there and is thoroughly enjoyable, most notably for McConaughey’s performance which is a role that has been a long time coming for him, and one that he nails right to the court room wall.
Primal Fear was a courtroom thriller that held you all the way to the bitter end, and as that solemn expression washed over poor Richard Gere‘s face at the end you could only stand up and applaud.
The Lincoln Lawyer travels down a similar premise, but despite all the twists and turns in a plot based on the novel by Michael Connelly it fails to keep the tension high enough to satisfy us to a pay off that is only blip on the thriller spectrum, I personally wanted something bigger.
Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone whose comfortable in this type of atmosphere
McConaughey plays Mick Haller a defence attourney working out the back of his sleak looking black Lincoln, and whose job it is to pretty much keep the scum of the earth on the streets, something which has obviously damaged his marraige with Maggie McPherson (Tomei). His reputation though is flipped over mid way through and we suddenly get an insight into a man that is as much a doting father as he is a great defence attorney.
Well alright, alright, alright!
When he’s asked to defend rich boy Louis Roulet (Phillippe) for beating a prostitute to within an inch of her life he suddenly gets a conscience when he realizes that the clean cut image might be a façade to something much more sinister. The film itself is not bad at all, and in parts it’s actually very good with McConaughey calling on his supporting cast for help which includes John Leguizamo and William H. Macy.
McConaughey’s court presence is smooth and charismatic, which would probably make him quite a good litigator in the real world. Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone who’s comfortable in this type of atmosphere.
Phillippe is certainly no Norton, and you know right off the bat that he’s as guilty as hell but its a good turn from him nonetheless. As thrillers go its up there and is thoroughly enjoyable, most notably for McConaughey’s performance which is a role that has been a long time coming for him, and one that he nails right to the court room wall.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Joy (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Jennifer Lawrence (Joy), Robert De Niro (Rudy, Joy’s father),
Bradley Cooper (Neil Walker, Joy’s eventual boss), Edgar Ramirez (Tony,
Joy’s ex-husband), Isabella Rossellini (Trudy, Rudy’s girlfriend), Diane
Ladd (Mimi, Joy’s grandmother), Virginia Madsen (Terry, Joys mother),
and Elisabeth Röhm (Peggy, Joys half-sister)
Also making appearances that were notable to me were Susan Lucci as
Danica, a character seen on the TV soap opera that Joys mother Terry is
constantly watching, and Melissa Rivers, playing her mother Joan Rivers
on the TV channel QVC.
David O. Russel wrote, directed and produced the film, bringing the
headliners back for yet another go ‘round, after the successes of Silver
Linings Playbook and American Hustle.
Joy is a divorced mother of 2, living in a house with her Grandmother
Mimi, who she adores, her mother, who practically never leaves her room,
her 2 kids, and her ex-husband in the basement. Shortly after the film
begins, her father Rudy also moves into the basement.
Joy struggles through her life every day, never quite able to get ahead,
and always just barely making ends meet. Her grandmother has big dreams
for her and insists that Joy will “rise above” and “make something” of
her life, but Joy struggles to have faith, and indeed, to even begin to
figure out how to go about such a seeming monumental task.
The story follows Joy and her family through somewhat ridiculous
scenarios, and while it was acted well by Jennifer Lawrence, De Niro,
and most of the rest of the cast, I had a hard time really getting into
the film.
I kept finding myself wondering why Joys family wasn’t more supportive
and why they all, with the exception of her Mimi and her ex-husband,
seemed to be more trying to bring her down and keep her down, than
giving her a boost and a push up. I always have liked Robert De Niro,
but in this film found myself seriously disliking him. I suppose that
speaks to his ability as an actor and being able to portray a role in
which he is “supposed to be” less than 100% likeable.
Jennifer Lawrence as Joy shows tenaciousness, grit and a will to succeed
and “rise above”, at least once she gets to the point in the film where
she has “HAD ENOUGH” of being walked on and disregarded, and plays the
part wonderfully.
I kept hoping to like the movie better, but sadly, also kept waiting for
it to GET better.
Bradley Cooper (Neil Walker, Joy’s eventual boss), Edgar Ramirez (Tony,
Joy’s ex-husband), Isabella Rossellini (Trudy, Rudy’s girlfriend), Diane
Ladd (Mimi, Joy’s grandmother), Virginia Madsen (Terry, Joys mother),
and Elisabeth Röhm (Peggy, Joys half-sister)
Also making appearances that were notable to me were Susan Lucci as
Danica, a character seen on the TV soap opera that Joys mother Terry is
constantly watching, and Melissa Rivers, playing her mother Joan Rivers
on the TV channel QVC.
David O. Russel wrote, directed and produced the film, bringing the
headliners back for yet another go ‘round, after the successes of Silver
Linings Playbook and American Hustle.
Joy is a divorced mother of 2, living in a house with her Grandmother
Mimi, who she adores, her mother, who practically never leaves her room,
her 2 kids, and her ex-husband in the basement. Shortly after the film
begins, her father Rudy also moves into the basement.
Joy struggles through her life every day, never quite able to get ahead,
and always just barely making ends meet. Her grandmother has big dreams
for her and insists that Joy will “rise above” and “make something” of
her life, but Joy struggles to have faith, and indeed, to even begin to
figure out how to go about such a seeming monumental task.
The story follows Joy and her family through somewhat ridiculous
scenarios, and while it was acted well by Jennifer Lawrence, De Niro,
and most of the rest of the cast, I had a hard time really getting into
the film.
I kept finding myself wondering why Joys family wasn’t more supportive
and why they all, with the exception of her Mimi and her ex-husband,
seemed to be more trying to bring her down and keep her down, than
giving her a boost and a push up. I always have liked Robert De Niro,
but in this film found myself seriously disliking him. I suppose that
speaks to his ability as an actor and being able to portray a role in
which he is “supposed to be” less than 100% likeable.
Jennifer Lawrence as Joy shows tenaciousness, grit and a will to succeed
and “rise above”, at least once she gets to the point in the film where
she has “HAD ENOUGH” of being walked on and disregarded, and plays the
part wonderfully.
I kept hoping to like the movie better, but sadly, also kept waiting for
it to GET better.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The End Of The Tour (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The End of the Tour tells the story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter and novelist David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel), which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace’s groundbreaking epic novel, Infinite Jest. The film is based on Lipsky’s critically acclaimed memoir about this unforgettable encounter, written following Wallace’s 2008 suicide.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
My All Time Favorite Comedy
There are certain films that I can revisit time and time again and the effects of the film do not diminish for me and I would argue that they get better with age...and with repeated viewings.
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Another Round (2020) in Movies
Apr 21, 2021
Interesting...but the ending did not resonate
Films have a tendency to fall on one of 2 sides when their subject matter is drinking, partying and alchoholism - (1) “They’re just a bunch of partying fun people” or (2) “They’re drinking to cover up emotions they don’t want to deal with and, eventually, it will lead to their ruin”.
Danish Director Thomas Vinterberg was the surprise Oscar nominee for his direction in the film ANOTHER ROUND (a film he also co-wrote) as he attempted the noble feat of straddling these two sides.
And…the result is an admirable attempt that falls just shy of being good.
Starring the great Mads Mikkelsen (the villain in the first DR. STRANGE film), ANOTHER ROUND tells the tale of 4 Danish High School teachers who are stuck in a rut (call it a mid-life crisis) and come up with the idea of being slightly drunk all of the time to elevate their lives.
The first half of the film flirts with “Frat Boy Party” territory as the 4 friends embark on the quest to see if staying slightly drunk elevates them. The results are quite mixed with moments of joy and triumph mixed in with some cringe-inducing moments. But then Vinterberg mines the “dark side” of alcoholism and the film takes a dark - and more interesting turn - only to have another turn at the end that just didn’t work for me.
Mikkelsen, of course, is quite good in the central role of Martin - the family man in mid-life depression crisis that kicks into “Frat Boy” mode when drinking “just enough”. His character switches back and forth between these 2 modes and Mikkelsen handles these changes like the terrific actor that he is.
His 3 friends played by Magnus Millang, Lars Ranthe and Thomas Bo Larson are all equally depressed and switch back and forth right along with Martin. Unfortunately, none of these 3 have the “it” factor of Mikkelsen, so are really kept in his shadow - with the possible exception of a few moments by Larson.
This is the first film I have seen from Vinterberg, but what I have read about him is that this film pretty much sums up his career. An interesting idea, told fairly well with an ending that doesn’t really land. And that’s what I thought of this film. I’m glad I saw it, but it will fade after a time, as the ending just didn’t provide enough depth to keep ANOTHER ROUND with me for long.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Danish Director Thomas Vinterberg was the surprise Oscar nominee for his direction in the film ANOTHER ROUND (a film he also co-wrote) as he attempted the noble feat of straddling these two sides.
And…the result is an admirable attempt that falls just shy of being good.
Starring the great Mads Mikkelsen (the villain in the first DR. STRANGE film), ANOTHER ROUND tells the tale of 4 Danish High School teachers who are stuck in a rut (call it a mid-life crisis) and come up with the idea of being slightly drunk all of the time to elevate their lives.
The first half of the film flirts with “Frat Boy Party” territory as the 4 friends embark on the quest to see if staying slightly drunk elevates them. The results are quite mixed with moments of joy and triumph mixed in with some cringe-inducing moments. But then Vinterberg mines the “dark side” of alcoholism and the film takes a dark - and more interesting turn - only to have another turn at the end that just didn’t work for me.
Mikkelsen, of course, is quite good in the central role of Martin - the family man in mid-life depression crisis that kicks into “Frat Boy” mode when drinking “just enough”. His character switches back and forth between these 2 modes and Mikkelsen handles these changes like the terrific actor that he is.
His 3 friends played by Magnus Millang, Lars Ranthe and Thomas Bo Larson are all equally depressed and switch back and forth right along with Martin. Unfortunately, none of these 3 have the “it” factor of Mikkelsen, so are really kept in his shadow - with the possible exception of a few moments by Larson.
This is the first film I have seen from Vinterberg, but what I have read about him is that this film pretty much sums up his career. An interesting idea, told fairly well with an ending that doesn’t really land. And that’s what I thought of this film. I’m glad I saw it, but it will fade after a time, as the ending just didn’t provide enough depth to keep ANOTHER ROUND with me for long.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Martin Scorsese recommended The Leopard (1963) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Breakfast with Tiffany: An Uncle's Memoir. Edwin John Wintle in Books
Jun 24, 2019
My teacher gave me a small stack of books to read upon hearing how much I love reading, and claimed that this was her all-time favourite. Honestly, the title is what really appealed to me - clearly, it wasn't anything to do with Breakfast at Tiffany's, but I appreciated the reference.
This novel, this memoir, is a truthful, brutally honest book about life. I can't say I know what it's like to be in the author's place - I'm not a man, I'm not gay, I am not the guardian of my niece and I don't even live in America - but the little things are just so real.
Tiffany's home life isn't great, and one day her uncle volunteers to take her in. Never did he anticipate so much drama and pain from such a small girl. She's thirteen when she first moves in with her Uncle Eddy, and despite being a nice girl she is known to hang around with the wrong crowd. No matter how hard he tries, Eddy cannot prevent her from finding similar friends at her new school.
The pair really go through their ups and downs, and Ed himself talks a lot about personal thoughts and issues. He'd tested HIV-positive many years ago, and was also an unsuccessful actor. He broke up with his boyfriend relatively recently, and suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder. Basically, life just has not turned out the way he'd planned.
Living with a teenager teaches him a lot of things. He is reminded of his own youth, and has to get on with his life all while keeping Tiffany going too. It's not easy. Things do get rough, and he does find himself wondering why he ever got himself into this. But in the end their relationship is good, and they have a lot of fun together.
I did find this book great. It has hints of humour, conveys the bitter truth, and even gave me a taste of what it's like to be a guardian of a teenage girl. There are definitely references I would have appreciated more had I been older than sixteen, and many of Ed's problems, thoughts or situations may have been more interesting or important to an older generation.
That being said, I actually kind of loved this book. It isn't quite in my favourites - but who knows, maybe in thirty years time it will be. I think I can easily give Breakfast with Tiffany: An Uncle's Memoir 4.5 stars out of the full five.
This novel, this memoir, is a truthful, brutally honest book about life. I can't say I know what it's like to be in the author's place - I'm not a man, I'm not gay, I am not the guardian of my niece and I don't even live in America - but the little things are just so real.
Tiffany's home life isn't great, and one day her uncle volunteers to take her in. Never did he anticipate so much drama and pain from such a small girl. She's thirteen when she first moves in with her Uncle Eddy, and despite being a nice girl she is known to hang around with the wrong crowd. No matter how hard he tries, Eddy cannot prevent her from finding similar friends at her new school.
The pair really go through their ups and downs, and Ed himself talks a lot about personal thoughts and issues. He'd tested HIV-positive many years ago, and was also an unsuccessful actor. He broke up with his boyfriend relatively recently, and suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder. Basically, life just has not turned out the way he'd planned.
Living with a teenager teaches him a lot of things. He is reminded of his own youth, and has to get on with his life all while keeping Tiffany going too. It's not easy. Things do get rough, and he does find himself wondering why he ever got himself into this. But in the end their relationship is good, and they have a lot of fun together.
I did find this book great. It has hints of humour, conveys the bitter truth, and even gave me a taste of what it's like to be a guardian of a teenage girl. There are definitely references I would have appreciated more had I been older than sixteen, and many of Ed's problems, thoughts or situations may have been more interesting or important to an older generation.
That being said, I actually kind of loved this book. It isn't quite in my favourites - but who knows, maybe in thirty years time it will be. I think I can easily give Breakfast with Tiffany: An Uncle's Memoir 4.5 stars out of the full five.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 27, 2019
A missed opportunity
Like crossing the vast expanse of oceans in a sailing ship, rocketing across the vast expanse of our Galaxy would, naturally, lead one to self-contemplation. In the film AD ASTRA Brad Pitt spends a lot of time contemplating.
Unfortunately, that is pretty much all PItt - and this film - does.
AD ASTRA follows the adventure of Astronaut Roy McBride (Pitt) who's father Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) is a fabled Astronaut who disappeared while on a deep space mission to Neptune. When a Galaxy-wide energy pulse emanating from Neptune threatens life on Earth, suspicion is that Clifford is still alive in orbit around Neptune and the hope is that Roy can contact him and stop this life threatening force.
Sounds like an interesting premise, doesn't it? And it could have been. And the world that was built for this movie - a world set in the "near future", one where we did not stop going to the moon and space and there are now space stations - and colonies and pirates(!) - on the Moon and Mars, is an interesting concept and I really wanted to explore that world.
Unfortunately, Director and Writer James Gray (THE LOST CITY OF Z) was not interested in exploring this (so why build it?!?) - he was more interested in contemplating the meaning of life's purpose and fate and legacies and do the sins of the father really come back to seek payment by the son? And I do mean contemplate, for that is what Pitt's character does through most of this film - sit and think (which we hear through voice over), while contemplative music plays wistfully.
It's a good recipe to cure insomnia.
While Pitt does a nice enough job in the lead - an actor can only do so much with looking, thoughtfully, out the window. Ruth Negga and Donald Sutherland both try to inject some life in this film, but their parts are, in essence, extended cameos and the likes of "that guy" actors like Donnie Kashawarz, John Finn and John Ortiz pop up for a scene or two along the way as we travel across our Galaxy with Pitt but don't really register Only Tommy Lee Jones manages to liven things up...but his presence is too little too late.
Like a parent, I am not upset at this film, just disappointed at the choices that were made. I thought Pitt and Gray knew better.
Letter Grade: B- (it is well made and pretty to look at)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately, that is pretty much all PItt - and this film - does.
AD ASTRA follows the adventure of Astronaut Roy McBride (Pitt) who's father Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) is a fabled Astronaut who disappeared while on a deep space mission to Neptune. When a Galaxy-wide energy pulse emanating from Neptune threatens life on Earth, suspicion is that Clifford is still alive in orbit around Neptune and the hope is that Roy can contact him and stop this life threatening force.
Sounds like an interesting premise, doesn't it? And it could have been. And the world that was built for this movie - a world set in the "near future", one where we did not stop going to the moon and space and there are now space stations - and colonies and pirates(!) - on the Moon and Mars, is an interesting concept and I really wanted to explore that world.
Unfortunately, Director and Writer James Gray (THE LOST CITY OF Z) was not interested in exploring this (so why build it?!?) - he was more interested in contemplating the meaning of life's purpose and fate and legacies and do the sins of the father really come back to seek payment by the son? And I do mean contemplate, for that is what Pitt's character does through most of this film - sit and think (which we hear through voice over), while contemplative music plays wistfully.
It's a good recipe to cure insomnia.
While Pitt does a nice enough job in the lead - an actor can only do so much with looking, thoughtfully, out the window. Ruth Negga and Donald Sutherland both try to inject some life in this film, but their parts are, in essence, extended cameos and the likes of "that guy" actors like Donnie Kashawarz, John Finn and John Ortiz pop up for a scene or two along the way as we travel across our Galaxy with Pitt but don't really register Only Tommy Lee Jones manages to liven things up...but his presence is too little too late.
Like a parent, I am not upset at this film, just disappointed at the choices that were made. I thought Pitt and Gray knew better.
Letter Grade: B- (it is well made and pretty to look at)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
PRANK ME! 2 Trick Your Friends for iPhone & iPod touch
Catalogs and Productivity
App
*********************************** LAUNCH SPECIAL: $1.99 CENTS!! GET IT NOW BEFORE THE PRICE GOES...