Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Grandma's Boy (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Life for video game tester is often filled with long hours, countless repetition and ever looming deadlines as the rush to get the latest games done and on budget is a key factor in the gaming industry. Often testers, much like the game coders toil away in obscurity with only their fellow gamers and personality quirks as their only companions. One such individual is a man named Alex (Allen Covert), a 36 year old professional game tester who suddenly finds himself out of his home thanks to a roommate who spends months of rent money at a local brothel.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Ethereal Custody: Anthologies in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-60.png"/>;
Ethereal Custody: Anthologies is a story about a young man, who was born in an underground slum and decides to risk his life for a chance to reach the surface. During his pursuit, he discovers that he is part of a much larger scheme of a supernatural nature, in an alternate reality. To escape his world, he grasps the opportunity to create utopia. But paradise has a dark side too.
While we follow this main character, we also follow different characters, who are part of the alternative world that this man created in his dreams - with their own stories of supernatural nature, Angels and people with animalistic tendencies involved as well.
<b><i>“We don’t hold grudges against Angels who didn’t save us. Our self-held grudges stem from the idea that we should have been able to save ourselves.”</i></b>
The story follows a few different planets, with a lot of different characters.
The book is written in the form of a journal. For me, it was very difficult to keep track of the planets and characters. I was losing interest very quickly, re-reading the same page a few times, seeking for adventures and plot twists, when all I could see were descriptions of places and objects. Sometimes there were good parts, where the story was really intriguing. Other times, I had to put the book down and read something else.
<b><i>“I don’t know if it’s forgiveness or love or grieving. But life feels like this slow and heartbroken process of learning to live without something we wanted so badly that we cannot have. To go on without those loved people we miss so much and all the precious moments we could have shared and knowing those futures will never be. It’s having to learn how to trek forward in a new life without a part of yourself; that missing fragment of a loving heart we surrendered and gave away as a gift to someone who’s no longer here with us.”</i></b>
There were many descriptions of places being repeated with the exact words. This made me wonder and question myself whether I’ve read this before. I then needed to go back in the book and reassure myself. It was very irritating to go back and find the same paragraph a few chapters earlier, with the same description of a place.
<b><i>“If there’s anything I learned tonight, it is this: I want to die with a smile on my face.”</i></b>
I am sad to say I didn’t enjoy this book.
Honestly, I liked the idea and where it was intended to go. I also liked the way it was written in the form of a journal. However, the writing was bad. Not only from a grammar and editing point of view, but also the skill to keep the reader intrigued. This book put me through a big reading slump. I am not a fan of DNFing books, but I was close with this one. I recommend Ethereal Custody: Anthologies, if you enjoy multiple planets, a lot of characters and a bit of supernatural sprinkles on top, but this book wasn’t for me.
<b><i>“We are afraid to be silent, yet afraid to speak. We fear to be alone with our demons in the dark, yet we are terrified of those demons being seen in the light among friends. Afraid to be powerless; afraid to be influential. I don’t understand it. I just don’t want to be afraid of myself anymore.”</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-60.png"/>;
Ethereal Custody: Anthologies is a story about a young man, who was born in an underground slum and decides to risk his life for a chance to reach the surface. During his pursuit, he discovers that he is part of a much larger scheme of a supernatural nature, in an alternate reality. To escape his world, he grasps the opportunity to create utopia. But paradise has a dark side too.
While we follow this main character, we also follow different characters, who are part of the alternative world that this man created in his dreams - with their own stories of supernatural nature, Angels and people with animalistic tendencies involved as well.
<b><i>“We don’t hold grudges against Angels who didn’t save us. Our self-held grudges stem from the idea that we should have been able to save ourselves.”</i></b>
The story follows a few different planets, with a lot of different characters.
The book is written in the form of a journal. For me, it was very difficult to keep track of the planets and characters. I was losing interest very quickly, re-reading the same page a few times, seeking for adventures and plot twists, when all I could see were descriptions of places and objects. Sometimes there were good parts, where the story was really intriguing. Other times, I had to put the book down and read something else.
<b><i>“I don’t know if it’s forgiveness or love or grieving. But life feels like this slow and heartbroken process of learning to live without something we wanted so badly that we cannot have. To go on without those loved people we miss so much and all the precious moments we could have shared and knowing those futures will never be. It’s having to learn how to trek forward in a new life without a part of yourself; that missing fragment of a loving heart we surrendered and gave away as a gift to someone who’s no longer here with us.”</i></b>
There were many descriptions of places being repeated with the exact words. This made me wonder and question myself whether I’ve read this before. I then needed to go back in the book and reassure myself. It was very irritating to go back and find the same paragraph a few chapters earlier, with the same description of a place.
<b><i>“If there’s anything I learned tonight, it is this: I want to die with a smile on my face.”</i></b>
I am sad to say I didn’t enjoy this book.
Honestly, I liked the idea and where it was intended to go. I also liked the way it was written in the form of a journal. However, the writing was bad. Not only from a grammar and editing point of view, but also the skill to keep the reader intrigued. This book put me through a big reading slump. I am not a fan of DNFing books, but I was close with this one. I recommend Ethereal Custody: Anthologies, if you enjoy multiple planets, a lot of characters and a bit of supernatural sprinkles on top, but this book wasn’t for me.
<b><i>“We are afraid to be silent, yet afraid to speak. We fear to be alone with our demons in the dark, yet we are terrified of those demons being seen in the light among friends. Afraid to be powerless; afraid to be influential. I don’t understand it. I just don’t want to be afraid of myself anymore.”</i></b>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
You know when someone tells you you should watch something... and then someone else does... and after every new "oh my god, you haven't seen it?!" you become more stubborn about watching it? That's exactly why it has taken me so long to watch Snowpiercer.
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Liam Neeson's special set of skills return
The Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars have received over 650 votes so far and it’s proving to be the closest run awards ever. Make sure you cast your vote for the best films and performances from 2017 before March 6th.
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
Rob Bell's book wins on pathos and good intentions, but not on solid argumentation or exegesis. He has a heart for the lost and the suffering, which is admirable. But he has to turn the Bible into theological silly putty to make his case.
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Days Later (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Verdict: Modern Zombie Gem
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Becoming Darkness 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>
Never have I ever read a book in which Hitler won World War II and succeeded in taking over the world.
Until now. I admit I'm a little fond of this one because of the whole alternative history thing going on right there, but I'm a little disturbed here, Lindsay Francis Brambles. You're as bad as Agatha Christie and came very close to killing everyone. Although technically, you did kill most of the characters that I grew fond of. Not cool. I don't think I can ever forgive you for this transgression of Trigger Happy Book. (More like Explosion Happy Book.)
But in the very long run, I only liked <i>Becoming Darkness</i> for a few things.
Sadistic as it may be, I did like how Brambles made Hitler won the second world war and unleashed a virus that made a lot of people turn into vampires all of that is told within the first few pages. Although the origins of Gemorrah (le virus) is revealed throughout the story and integrated in the plot, I still don't understand how the creators came up with that name in the first place. Does it mean something in German, or is it something they thought sounded sinister and cool and decided to go with it? In my humble opinion, it does not sound cool or sinister. It sounds like a Mary Poppins word.
I also really liked how Brambles didn't go completely off course from history there are some references to the war, there might be another significant historical figure who makes a cameo appearance (under a different name, but don't quote me), etc. Basically, there's not much that's thrown in completely off kilter aside from maybe the virus I still feel fishy about that.
Sophie Harkness does not take BS when there are boys hitting on her in the stupidest, cheesiest ways. Namely: "We're meant for one another because you're a girl, I'm a guy, and we have the parts to create phenomenal offspring." Sorry for the disturbing image, but that was very much implied by the character. Unfortunately for her, she sort of believes in love at first sight when she first met Val back when she was fourteen.
Sophie is also not a judgmental character she's very open-minded and believes vampires aren't exactly sinister blood sucking creatures. Every other Immune, those who can't get Gemorrah, are so judgmental and narrow-minded, it just peeves me greatly. It IS understandable, though, considering the year Brambles sets the book in.
Unfortunately, I didn't really like the whole flashbacks. For awhile in the beginning, it's a little confusing and I had to backtrack to make sure it was a flashback and not actually set in the present day. There's a "sort-of" warning and then we're in flashback mode that feels like it's set in the present but is really Sophie telling a story. On the bright side, all those flashbacks (and the journal entries written by Sophie's mom) all play a relevant role in the overall plot.
I also didn't really like Valentine. Though I eventually warmed up to him over the course of the book, something about him was really disturbing. He's not an annoying "stalker type" of character, but it IS a little weird he still tried to keep his connections to Sophie's family from grandma to mom to Sophie in the hopes of falling in love again. But considering the fact he's doesn't throw out stupidly cheesy lines at Sophie, I like him a little.
Have I mentioned I'm sick and tired of seeing the name Valentine over and over again in literature? We just can't get any more original than St. Valentine, can we?
I would totally summarize <i>Becoming Darkness</i> in a few words if only I didn't end up giving major spoilers. But in a nutshell, the book quite literally tells me all of us should be downright grateful the Third Reich didn't succeed. It also told me I'm royally screwed if the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, but I think I've established that in sixth grade with the whole Ramen Noodle Stove catastrophe.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-becoming-darkness-by-lindsay-francis-brambles/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Never have I ever read a book in which Hitler won World War II and succeeded in taking over the world.
Until now. I admit I'm a little fond of this one because of the whole alternative history thing going on right there, but I'm a little disturbed here, Lindsay Francis Brambles. You're as bad as Agatha Christie and came very close to killing everyone. Although technically, you did kill most of the characters that I grew fond of. Not cool. I don't think I can ever forgive you for this transgression of Trigger Happy Book. (More like Explosion Happy Book.)
But in the very long run, I only liked <i>Becoming Darkness</i> for a few things.
Sadistic as it may be, I did like how Brambles made Hitler won the second world war and unleashed a virus that made a lot of people turn into vampires all of that is told within the first few pages. Although the origins of Gemorrah (le virus) is revealed throughout the story and integrated in the plot, I still don't understand how the creators came up with that name in the first place. Does it mean something in German, or is it something they thought sounded sinister and cool and decided to go with it? In my humble opinion, it does not sound cool or sinister. It sounds like a Mary Poppins word.
I also really liked how Brambles didn't go completely off course from history there are some references to the war, there might be another significant historical figure who makes a cameo appearance (under a different name, but don't quote me), etc. Basically, there's not much that's thrown in completely off kilter aside from maybe the virus I still feel fishy about that.
Sophie Harkness does not take BS when there are boys hitting on her in the stupidest, cheesiest ways. Namely: "We're meant for one another because you're a girl, I'm a guy, and we have the parts to create phenomenal offspring." Sorry for the disturbing image, but that was very much implied by the character. Unfortunately for her, she sort of believes in love at first sight when she first met Val back when she was fourteen.
Sophie is also not a judgmental character she's very open-minded and believes vampires aren't exactly sinister blood sucking creatures. Every other Immune, those who can't get Gemorrah, are so judgmental and narrow-minded, it just peeves me greatly. It IS understandable, though, considering the year Brambles sets the book in.
Unfortunately, I didn't really like the whole flashbacks. For awhile in the beginning, it's a little confusing and I had to backtrack to make sure it was a flashback and not actually set in the present day. There's a "sort-of" warning and then we're in flashback mode that feels like it's set in the present but is really Sophie telling a story. On the bright side, all those flashbacks (and the journal entries written by Sophie's mom) all play a relevant role in the overall plot.
I also didn't really like Valentine. Though I eventually warmed up to him over the course of the book, something about him was really disturbing. He's not an annoying "stalker type" of character, but it IS a little weird he still tried to keep his connections to Sophie's family from grandma to mom to Sophie in the hopes of falling in love again. But considering the fact he's doesn't throw out stupidly cheesy lines at Sophie, I like him a little.
Have I mentioned I'm sick and tired of seeing the name Valentine over and over again in literature? We just can't get any more original than St. Valentine, can we?
I would totally summarize <i>Becoming Darkness</i> in a few words if only I didn't end up giving major spoilers. But in a nutshell, the book quite literally tells me all of us should be downright grateful the Third Reich didn't succeed. It also told me I'm royally screwed if the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, but I think I've established that in sixth grade with the whole Ramen Noodle Stove catastrophe.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-becoming-darkness-by-lindsay-francis-brambles/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
