Search
Search results
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...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
The limited cast is great (1 more)
The sound design is amazing
Expect the Unexpected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I remember when the first Cloverfield movie was released, it was made in secret and after the trailer dropped people were really hyped. Then the movie came out and it was okay, but nowhere near as good as the trailer and most people quickly forgot about it and it has kind of faded into obscurity since then, remembered only as an interesting experiment that never really lived up to its full potential. So when a follow up movie set in the same universe was announced at the start of this year, you can imagine the surprise of movie fans. Again this movie was made in secret, not an easy thing to do in this day and age and although it shared a name with the first movie, this isn’t necessarily a sequel or a prequel. This review will contain a spoiler free section then a section where I will spoil the hell out of everything in the movie, but don’t worry I’ll give you fair warning before I do that.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Grave's a Fine and Private Place: A Flavia de Luce Mystery Book 9 in Books
Jan 15, 2018
Flavia! (2 more)
Relationship between Flavia and Dogger
Mystery plot
Another excellent entry in Bradley's Flavia de Luce series
In the ninth (! - how is that possible?) Flavia de Luce mystery, we see Flavia away from her home turf, as she and her sisters have been sent away from Buckshaw on a holiday to try to help them recover from the death of their father. But instead (of course) Flavia discovers a dead body. As the gang is boating, she drags her hand along the water, it snags on something and boom - she catches her fingers on a corpse. Only our Flavia! Of course, Flavia isn't content to leave things to the local Constable. The dead man is named Orlando, and his death leads Flavia into a world of a traveling circus, a famous Canon renowned for poisoning three women, and much more.
I am an unabashed fan of Flavia and this book didn't disappoint. It has all the staples of an excellent Flavia novel-- a strong mystery to unravel and a bunch of clever, witty, and surprisingly uncanny lines from our beloved protagonist. By now, our dear twelve-year-old Flavia has been through a lot. She's more mature, and she's as feisty and clever as ever. I admit that some of the chemistry in these novels goes over my head (I'm not as smart as Flavia, and I'm completely fine admitting that). But I love the mystery plots, and more than that, I love Flavia. I've felt protective of her since the first novel, even though the thought of that would anger her more than anything.
There's a good eclectic cast of supporting characters in this one, including an aged actor, an undertaker's son, and a woman who used to know Dogger. And, of course, we get some appearances from Flavia's ever-suffering sisters, Daffy and Feely. The best part of this novel, however, for me, was the strengthening relationship between Dogger and Flavia. Their bond is one of the highlights of the book. I love those two. By now, Flavia and Dogger feel like friends, or even family. It's a sign of how well Bradley writes and creates these characters that you feel so attached to them.
Suffice to say, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. If you're a fan of Bradley's series, you probably will as well. If you haven't picked up this series, I do suggest starting near the beginning, as you'll form a better bond with the characters. But you will be able to jump in with this book, too, as the mystery stands alone. The ending of this one also leaves me excited and looking forward to what I hope will be book #10.
I was very excited to receive a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
I am an unabashed fan of Flavia and this book didn't disappoint. It has all the staples of an excellent Flavia novel-- a strong mystery to unravel and a bunch of clever, witty, and surprisingly uncanny lines from our beloved protagonist. By now, our dear twelve-year-old Flavia has been through a lot. She's more mature, and she's as feisty and clever as ever. I admit that some of the chemistry in these novels goes over my head (I'm not as smart as Flavia, and I'm completely fine admitting that). But I love the mystery plots, and more than that, I love Flavia. I've felt protective of her since the first novel, even though the thought of that would anger her more than anything.
There's a good eclectic cast of supporting characters in this one, including an aged actor, an undertaker's son, and a woman who used to know Dogger. And, of course, we get some appearances from Flavia's ever-suffering sisters, Daffy and Feely. The best part of this novel, however, for me, was the strengthening relationship between Dogger and Flavia. Their bond is one of the highlights of the book. I love those two. By now, Flavia and Dogger feel like friends, or even family. It's a sign of how well Bradley writes and creates these characters that you feel so attached to them.
Suffice to say, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. If you're a fan of Bradley's series, you probably will as well. If you haven't picked up this series, I do suggest starting near the beginning, as you'll form a better bond with the characters. But you will be able to jump in with this book, too, as the mystery stands alone. The ending of this one also leaves me excited and looking forward to what I hope will be book #10.
I was very excited to receive a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"if you are nothing without the suit then you shouldn't have it."
A John Hughes-esque coming-of-age movie, disguised as a friendly neighborhood adventure from the MCU; Spider-Man: Homecoming is more about growing up, and less about saving the world.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.