Search
The Byline Bible
9.0
Rate It
Book
Newspaper, magazine, and web editors are desperate for new voices and anyone, in any field, can...
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Slayer (Slayer #1) in Books
Apr 1, 2019
I am a Buffy fan. I'm not the biggest Buffy fan I know - that honor goes to a friend of mine, who I just gave a giant box of Buffy comic to, since we're downsizing in preparation for the move to the new house. I haven't seen anyone that happy in a while, and it made my day. (And hers, judging from the bouncing and squeeeeing and hugging!) But I am still a Buffy fan. I own DVDs of the entire show, plus Angel, plus the original movie. The box of comics I just gave away was Season 8 and some spin offs. Slayer takes place after all of that.
First I'm going to say, if you're not a Buffy fan, seriously don't bother with this book. You won't understand a lot of what goes on, and while there are cursory explanations given in the book, it's really not meant for people that haven't watched/read the rest of the world. You'd be okay not knowing much about Angel, but you really do need to have watched the TV show of Buffy, especially that last season. While the book takes place after the comics, they're not necessary to understand the plot as that, at least, is explained.
So, for the rest of us Buffy fans, this is a great continuation of the Buffy-verse. Nina is the daughter of Watchers - in fact the daughter of Buffy's first watcher, the one before Giles. Given what befell the Watchers, the ones that are left are kind of antagonistic towards Slayers in general and Buffy in particular. So when Nina becomes a Slayer, her world goes sideways.
The world is mostly the same, but with a twist due to events in the comics. (It's explained. You don't need to have read them.) The book expands on how Slayer powers work, a bit, especially their dreams now that there's more than one of them alive at a time. We do see mentions of familiar characters, with one notable scene where an old favorite appears briefly.
I really enjoyed the book, and I'm eager to read the second half of the duology when it comes out. I need to know how Nina's story ends! The book ended on a subtle cliffhanger; the main conflict has been resolved, and the characters think it's over, but we know it's not. Similar to how many episodes of Buffy ended, actually.
So yeah. If you're a Buffy fan, pick up this book, it's pretty great. If you're not - take a pass. Or start with the TV show and get yourself a new fandom if you're feeling bored!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
First I'm going to say, if you're not a Buffy fan, seriously don't bother with this book. You won't understand a lot of what goes on, and while there are cursory explanations given in the book, it's really not meant for people that haven't watched/read the rest of the world. You'd be okay not knowing much about Angel, but you really do need to have watched the TV show of Buffy, especially that last season. While the book takes place after the comics, they're not necessary to understand the plot as that, at least, is explained.
So, for the rest of us Buffy fans, this is a great continuation of the Buffy-verse. Nina is the daughter of Watchers - in fact the daughter of Buffy's first watcher, the one before Giles. Given what befell the Watchers, the ones that are left are kind of antagonistic towards Slayers in general and Buffy in particular. So when Nina becomes a Slayer, her world goes sideways.
The world is mostly the same, but with a twist due to events in the comics. (It's explained. You don't need to have read them.) The book expands on how Slayer powers work, a bit, especially their dreams now that there's more than one of them alive at a time. We do see mentions of familiar characters, with one notable scene where an old favorite appears briefly.
I really enjoyed the book, and I'm eager to read the second half of the duology when it comes out. I need to know how Nina's story ends! The book ended on a subtle cliffhanger; the main conflict has been resolved, and the characters think it's over, but we know it's not. Similar to how many episodes of Buffy ended, actually.
So yeah. If you're a Buffy fan, pick up this book, it's pretty great. If you're not - take a pass. Or start with the TV show and get yourself a new fandom if you're feeling bored!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Forever Purge (2021) in Movies
Feb 20, 2022
I'm definitely late to the party on this series, I watched The Purge in preparation for First Purge and really enjoyed both... and let's face it, there's nothing like some gratuitous violence to fill your evening!
The annual Purge comes and goes with the usual drama, with those locked up safely in their spacious homes watching the events on TV. When morning comes and they come out of hiding, they get a welcome they weren't expecting. A rogue movement has no time for the law, it's now the forever purge.
So, a section of the population has decided to rise up and take their power back the only way they know how, through violence... you always worry that films might hit a little too close to home... let's not delve into that topic too much though.
Josh Lucas feels like he's making a resurgence these days. I'm not sure how I feel about him in this sort of role though. Dylan Tucker isn't exactly an exciting character, he has a rather unbelievable arc through the film, and there's no point where I felt any sympathy for him.
A lot of the other characters have similar flaws, there's no one that's really memorable apart from maybe Ana de la Reguera as Adele. She has some interesting moments to do with her backstory, but there's never much of an in-depth look at any of it throughout the film.
The Purge was a great concept and I loved the way it was very focused on one environment. The First Purge had an interesting story and I liked having the inception of the idea unfold. But the trouble with The Forever Purge was that it was somehow too much and not enough all at the same time. There were moments that had a lot of potential for the characters but they were cut off before they managed to get anywhere.
I got the escalating amount of the mindless violence I was looking for, but it seemed to mainly just be "travelling" action. There wasn't anything particularly gripping about it, and it didn't hold up to the previous instalments of the franchise I've seen, and that was a real shame.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-forever-purge-movie-review.html
The annual Purge comes and goes with the usual drama, with those locked up safely in their spacious homes watching the events on TV. When morning comes and they come out of hiding, they get a welcome they weren't expecting. A rogue movement has no time for the law, it's now the forever purge.
So, a section of the population has decided to rise up and take their power back the only way they know how, through violence... you always worry that films might hit a little too close to home... let's not delve into that topic too much though.
Josh Lucas feels like he's making a resurgence these days. I'm not sure how I feel about him in this sort of role though. Dylan Tucker isn't exactly an exciting character, he has a rather unbelievable arc through the film, and there's no point where I felt any sympathy for him.
A lot of the other characters have similar flaws, there's no one that's really memorable apart from maybe Ana de la Reguera as Adele. She has some interesting moments to do with her backstory, but there's never much of an in-depth look at any of it throughout the film.
The Purge was a great concept and I loved the way it was very focused on one environment. The First Purge had an interesting story and I liked having the inception of the idea unfold. But the trouble with The Forever Purge was that it was somehow too much and not enough all at the same time. There were moments that had a lot of potential for the characters but they were cut off before they managed to get anywhere.
I got the escalating amount of the mindless violence I was looking for, but it seemed to mainly just be "travelling" action. There wasn't anything particularly gripping about it, and it didn't hold up to the previous instalments of the franchise I've seen, and that was a real shame.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-forever-purge-movie-review.html
Learn Spanish Levels I & II with Bueno, entonces...
Education and Entertainment
App
Bueno, entonces... ready to learn Spanish? Bueno, entonces... is an intensive 5-week Spanish...
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated 9-1-1 in TV
Jul 8, 2019 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Stiff acting (4 more)
Fake fake fake fake fake
Scenarios no professional first responder would ever get into.
Terrible writing
Are there no medical director/firefighter/police officer technical advisers to tell them the correct way to do ALL OF THIS?
I like Connie Britton, who was a cast member during the first season of this show. However, she is no longer there and there is nothing to hold my interest and many, many things to make me lose interest. 911 has stiff acting and outrageously fake scenarios. She was replaced by Jennifer Love Hewitt, whom I'm neutral on for the most part, but I don't like her character, the scenarios she gets into, or her lines. Her acting isn't that great in this show, either, come to think of it. The manufactured drama is too forced. I've seen her do a better job with drama so I don't know if it's the director's choice or if she's taking dramatic license, but either way, her character isn't great. The characters, for the most part, are not believable or likable. It's just not a good cast. I like the diversity of the cast. There are several black cast members, an Asian cast member, and at least one Latinx cast member, which is so much better than most other shows, and let's face it than most of society. Come on, people, Let's mingle and mix things up.
I recently tried to watch 911 due to a draught of medical dramas and I ended up yelling at the tv about all the technical mistakes the EMTs and firefighters were making. I mean, they took an elevator up to an upper floor when the building was unstable and at risk of collapse or having a power outage. It was ridiculous. Who does that? If you are good at suspending belief, maybe you can tolerate this show. But as a hard-core medical freak, I cannot.
I recently tried to watch 911 due to a draught of medical dramas and I ended up yelling at the tv about all the technical mistakes the EMTs and firefighters were making. I mean, they took an elevator up to an upper floor when the building was unstable and at risk of collapse or having a power outage. It was ridiculous. Who does that? If you are good at suspending belief, maybe you can tolerate this show. But as a hard-core medical freak, I cannot.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Lee (2222 KP) rated It Comes At Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Tension packed, slow burner
I headed into ‘It Comes At Night’ in a similar way to when I saw ‘Get Out‘ a few months back – having seen a lot of positive four or five star buzz about it on my news feeds, but without actually seeing the trailer. I skimmed a couple of reviews this time, just to get a rough idea of what I was in for, and one of the words which seemed to crop up on a number of them was ‘unsettling’. Well, that sold it for me! Get Out is my favourite movie of the year so far, and I felt that my enjoyment of seeing that had been greatly improved having not seen the trailer, and with no expectations. So, I went into ‘It Comes At Night’ hoping for a similar experience.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Stop Motion Studio
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
Get Stop Motion Studio, the world’s easiest app to get you into stop motion moviemaking today! ...