Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 7500 (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2020
A 'small film' that packs a big punch
I'm not sure if there is an "IQ" table of Hollywood stars, but I would reckon if there is then Joseph Gordon-Levitt would rate pretty highly. Whenever I see him interviewed he comes across as a highly articulate and intelligent bloke. And that intelligence filters through into his choices of movie role. If you look back at his filmography on IMDB the first thing you notice is that his output is pretty sparse and selective, and the next is that the projects he's done mostly deliver a pretty strong hit rate: "500 Days of Summer"; "Inception", "Looper", "The Dark Knight Rises"; "Don Jon".... the list is impressive.
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Our Kind of Cruelty: A Novel in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Our Kind of Cruelty by Araminta Hall is a domestic thriller and courtroom drama like no other! I’ve never read one quite like it. Not only do we have a male narrator named Mike, and see things from his point of view, we’re also dealing with other issues of autism and passionate obsessions, too. Until recently, Mike and his girlfriend Verity ( V as he likes to call her) have played a dangerous, sexual game called ‘Crave’, for years. But when they break up obsessed Mike still believes V is playing the game and will come back to him, despite V telling him she’s getting married to someone else and inviting him to the wedding. Nothing deters single-minded, Mike from his expected outcome.
The book begins like any other but it wasn’t long before I felt sorry for Mike, even though I knew he was a nasty piece of work. Why? I found the reason I sympathised with him was in the details. The way the author, Araminta Hall, portrayed Mike’s years as he talked about life as a kid; the things he refused to do, or accept, because his thinking was always logical and he didn’t understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you don’t mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mike’s learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesn’t mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. He’s also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end you’ll realise Mike’s attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although it’s not particularly fast-paced to start with, the journey fascinated me. Our Kind of Cruelty is about obsessive love, unhealthy relationships, and the psychology of the human mind. Details. It’s all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist away… This would translate well to film.
The book begins like any other but it wasn’t long before I felt sorry for Mike, even though I knew he was a nasty piece of work. Why? I found the reason I sympathised with him was in the details. The way the author, Araminta Hall, portrayed Mike’s years as he talked about life as a kid; the things he refused to do, or accept, because his thinking was always logical and he didn’t understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you don’t mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mike’s learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesn’t mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. He’s also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end you’ll realise Mike’s attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although it’s not particularly fast-paced to start with, the journey fascinated me. Our Kind of Cruelty is about obsessive love, unhealthy relationships, and the psychology of the human mind. Details. It’s all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist away… This would translate well to film.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Apr 3, 2018
As a set of 80s references it was great, as a story in its own right it was OK
I am disappointed with myself for not reading this sooner. Not because it was a life-changing read, but because I now look to be jumping on the bandwagon with the film coming out. I had planned to read this about 3 years ago, before I knew there was a film but never quite got round to it.
The book tells the story of an online world people enter to escape the disaster the real world has become, and shows them spending money they don't have on things they don't need (outfits for their avatar etc), but sadly doesn't take this too far (see Black Mirror for more of a doom-laden version of this world) and tracks the progress of the world's egg-hunters ("gunters") looking to solve epic puzzles and hope to win the ownership of this online world after its creator dies and bequeaths it to the victor.
There are a slew of 80s references in the early pages, and these are mostly enjoyable (unless like me you hate things like the breakfast club and haven't seen many of the films referenced) but thereafter the references are almost solely coin-op video games based, with occasional nods to movies and music. For me, you can get more enjoyable 80s references from one of those talking heads shows ("here, do you remember rubix cubes, what were they all about?!").
The solving of the puzzles (a fairly large part of the story) seemed a little clumsy to me, as if all of a sudden people would make a connection several years after working at it and then just bash on and solve it. This was none more present than in the very final puzzle, there was no logic as to why the solution was what it was. I kind of felt like Cline was desperate for the toilet when he was writing it, twitching on the edge of his seat and just quickly finished it off before he soiled himself.
There were a few twists and turns in the book, and they were mostly enjoyable though I felt there were a few missed tricks (the identity of "Aech" for example - I would put money on Cline planning this to be some Artificial Intelligence reincarnation of Halliday, the world's creator but he wussed out if it).
All in all, I enjoyed reading this, the prose flows quite nicely and easily, and the journey is enjoyable enough. I just felt there could have been more effort on the story and less on squeezing 80s references in ad nauseam.
The book tells the story of an online world people enter to escape the disaster the real world has become, and shows them spending money they don't have on things they don't need (outfits for their avatar etc), but sadly doesn't take this too far (see Black Mirror for more of a doom-laden version of this world) and tracks the progress of the world's egg-hunters ("gunters") looking to solve epic puzzles and hope to win the ownership of this online world after its creator dies and bequeaths it to the victor.
There are a slew of 80s references in the early pages, and these are mostly enjoyable (unless like me you hate things like the breakfast club and haven't seen many of the films referenced) but thereafter the references are almost solely coin-op video games based, with occasional nods to movies and music. For me, you can get more enjoyable 80s references from one of those talking heads shows ("here, do you remember rubix cubes, what were they all about?!").
The solving of the puzzles (a fairly large part of the story) seemed a little clumsy to me, as if all of a sudden people would make a connection several years after working at it and then just bash on and solve it. This was none more present than in the very final puzzle, there was no logic as to why the solution was what it was. I kind of felt like Cline was desperate for the toilet when he was writing it, twitching on the edge of his seat and just quickly finished it off before he soiled himself.
There were a few twists and turns in the book, and they were mostly enjoyable though I felt there were a few missed tricks (the identity of "Aech" for example - I would put money on Cline planning this to be some Artificial Intelligence reincarnation of Halliday, the world's creator but he wussed out if it).
All in all, I enjoyed reading this, the prose flows quite nicely and easily, and the journey is enjoyable enough. I just felt there could have been more effort on the story and less on squeezing 80s references in ad nauseam.
Wake Up, Sir!
Jonathan Ames and Jamie Keenan
Book
A brilliant contemporary reimagining of the greatest comic relationship of all time, which goes far...
Nollywood: The Video Phenomenon in Nigeria
Book
With over 1,200 video films produced each year, Nigeria has become one of the most prolific...
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated The Zookeeper's Wife (2017) in Movies
Nov 24, 2017 (Updated Nov 24, 2017)
Story is harrowing and essential but film could have been made better
As a massive fan of biopics, The Zookeeper's Wife is an incredibly important tale of a the real life Polish couple who sheltered Jews in their zoo during the Second World War, helping 300 people to escape from Warsaw.
Dr. Jan Zabinski was the director of the Warsaw Zoo in the 1930's, and along with his wife Antonina and young son, they ensured the safety and care of animals in the area. Their life came to an abrupt halt with the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when most of their animals and structures were destroyed in the bombings and siege of the city. The zoo was closed under German occupation, but the Zabinskis continued to occupy the villa, and the zoo itself was used first as a pig farm and subsequently as a fur farm. All the while, Dr Zabinski smuggled Jewish people out of the Warsaw Ghetto and aided their way out of city, not before allowing them to stay in their own house. He was injured while fighting in the Polish resistance, but the couple were given an honorary title by Yad Vashem (Israel's official memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust) for their brave efforts.
Similar in the vein of films such as @Schindler's List (1993), there is an element of a saviour complex in these films, but unlike Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winner, it is less extravagant and less well-made, as there was very little engagement with the Jewish characters - focusing more on Antonina, played by Jessica Chastain. It is definitely heart-wrenching watching films based on the holocaust, and there were scenes I had to turn away from, such as when an elderly woman and her mother were shot dead in the streets by soldiers. The script and cinematography weren't at a high standard, however, and as a result the film definitely fell short. I would suggest reading the book @The Zookeeper's Wife - it has far more detail than the film, in which there were glaringly obvious plot holes.
Dr. Jan Zabinski was the director of the Warsaw Zoo in the 1930's, and along with his wife Antonina and young son, they ensured the safety and care of animals in the area. Their life came to an abrupt halt with the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when most of their animals and structures were destroyed in the bombings and siege of the city. The zoo was closed under German occupation, but the Zabinskis continued to occupy the villa, and the zoo itself was used first as a pig farm and subsequently as a fur farm. All the while, Dr Zabinski smuggled Jewish people out of the Warsaw Ghetto and aided their way out of city, not before allowing them to stay in their own house. He was injured while fighting in the Polish resistance, but the couple were given an honorary title by Yad Vashem (Israel's official memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust) for their brave efforts.
Similar in the vein of films such as @Schindler's List (1993), there is an element of a saviour complex in these films, but unlike Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winner, it is less extravagant and less well-made, as there was very little engagement with the Jewish characters - focusing more on Antonina, played by Jessica Chastain. It is definitely heart-wrenching watching films based on the holocaust, and there were scenes I had to turn away from, such as when an elderly woman and her mother were shot dead in the streets by soldiers. The script and cinematography weren't at a high standard, however, and as a result the film definitely fell short. I would suggest reading the book @The Zookeeper's Wife - it has far more detail than the film, in which there were glaringly obvious plot holes.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Wizard of Lies (2017) in Movies
Mar 8, 2018
Captivating...
Bernie Madoff. What can you say? His Ponzi scheme was so complex, far-reaching and of epic proportions, it ruined many people's lives. Tore their life savings from them based on the betrayal of trust.
"Rain Man' director, Barry Levinson, successfully captures the intrigue, suspense, and also the interesting family dynamics in this compelling true story.
If the family dynamics are to be believed as his wife and sons did not know about any of the lies and fraudulent trading, they were either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid or just living the good life..
De Niro gives one of his most memorable recent performances and almost makes you sympathize with him. The actual reporter who wrote the book plays herself well in the film also.
Was Madoff a sociopath?
"Rain Man' director, Barry Levinson, successfully captures the intrigue, suspense, and also the interesting family dynamics in this compelling true story.
If the family dynamics are to be believed as his wife and sons did not know about any of the lies and fraudulent trading, they were either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid or just living the good life..
De Niro gives one of his most memorable recent performances and almost makes you sympathize with him. The actual reporter who wrote the book plays herself well in the film also.
Was Madoff a sociopath?
Fairchild C-82 Packet: The Military and Civil History
Book
Originally designed as a cargo and paratroop transport during World War II, the Fairchild C-82...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Aug 9, 2021
Engaging love story (at least, the one in the 60's) (2 more)
Lush production values, especially production design and cinematography
Great cast - especially Shailene Woodley and Ben Cross
A proper old-fashioned love story that older viewers will appreciate.
Is "chick flick" a phrase that you can use these days? I guess not, since it infers that a movie is only of interest to a particular gender. Perhaps "Sunday afternoon film" is a better phrase. And "The Last Letter From Your Lover" is a real SAF.
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
