Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Sharp Objects in TV
Oct 4, 2018 (Updated Oct 4, 2018)
Boring and drawn out (1 more)
Terrible ending
Overrated and Slow
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was looking forward to Sharp Objects when it premiered earlier this year. I love a whodunit thriller and am a fan of Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn's other adapted novel. I also read a bunch of glowing reviews before I dove into this series that promised an engaging, gripping story, which just made me more excited to get through the show.
Unfortunately, gripping isn't the word I would choose to describe this show. Engaging maybe, in that even though none of the characters that you are following are very likable, you do have a morbid curiosity to see what is going to happen to them. To be honest though, this series is only 8 episodes long and it was a slog to try and get through. Each episode drags something awful, to the point that 3 episodes in, I was ready to give up on this series. Then my girlfriend reminded me that it is only a limited series and will be worth sticking with to find out who the killer is in the end. Well, she was wrong about that last part, but we'll get back to that later.
I am not a huge Amy Adams fan, I feel that other than Arrival, she pretty much does the exact same thing in any role she is in. In this, she actually puts in a decent performance, it's more the way that her character is written that I take issue with. Camille is a whiney, dour character that is a drag to watch and none of the characters around her are any better. Her mother is a bitter, nasty old cow and her younger sister is an arrogant, immature little shit.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if the pacing issues that the show has are inherent to the source material or the fault of the filmmakers. Either way, they are present and they are a detriment to this show. Every episode ends on an ambiguously exciting moment in order to keep you watching, then when the following episode picks up, it doesn't address whatever mad shit it just dropped on you at the end of the previous episode, to the point that I was left wondering a few times if I had actually missed out an episode in-between. Then it just drones on for another dull hour before dropping another inexplicable, shocking moment and it rinses and repeats this process throughout the entire series.
*SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*
This also applies to the last episode, which ends with such a nonsensical, out-of-nowhere twist that is never justified or explained. It is a classic example of having a twist, simply for the sake of ending on a twist. A good twist ending makes a reveal that causes everything that the viewer has seen so far click into place, it explains everything at once and that is why endings to stories like Fight Club, Mr Robot and The Sixth Sense are so satisfying. This makes the viewer want to go back and re-watch the film or series again with the new knowledge of what is going to happen in their mind in order to see it from a different perspective and spot the hints that point towards the big reveal. A bad twist ending drops a bomb abruptly and offers no explanation to the bombshell and leaves the viewer baffled and annoyed.
That is what happens with Sharp Objects' ending. There is absolutely no precedent to Amma being the killer. When Adora got arrested, it was underwhelming but there was at least some precedent for Adora to be the killer based on her other messed up behaviour, which provided some explanation, but Amma makes literally no sense. They could honestly have picked any other character on the show to be the killer and it would have made more sense. There is a weird post credits scene that I feel that was put in as a half-arsed explanation for the nonsensical twist, but it really doesn't help matters any. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know if the ending plays out the same way as the source material, or if it makes any more sense in the book, but in the show it is a mess.
Overall this is a slow burn that isn't even worth the slog of getting through thanks to a hugely disappointing payoff. The ending is the main reason that this only gets a 5. One of the most overrated things I've seen this year.
Unfortunately, gripping isn't the word I would choose to describe this show. Engaging maybe, in that even though none of the characters that you are following are very likable, you do have a morbid curiosity to see what is going to happen to them. To be honest though, this series is only 8 episodes long and it was a slog to try and get through. Each episode drags something awful, to the point that 3 episodes in, I was ready to give up on this series. Then my girlfriend reminded me that it is only a limited series and will be worth sticking with to find out who the killer is in the end. Well, she was wrong about that last part, but we'll get back to that later.
I am not a huge Amy Adams fan, I feel that other than Arrival, she pretty much does the exact same thing in any role she is in. In this, she actually puts in a decent performance, it's more the way that her character is written that I take issue with. Camille is a whiney, dour character that is a drag to watch and none of the characters around her are any better. Her mother is a bitter, nasty old cow and her younger sister is an arrogant, immature little shit.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if the pacing issues that the show has are inherent to the source material or the fault of the filmmakers. Either way, they are present and they are a detriment to this show. Every episode ends on an ambiguously exciting moment in order to keep you watching, then when the following episode picks up, it doesn't address whatever mad shit it just dropped on you at the end of the previous episode, to the point that I was left wondering a few times if I had actually missed out an episode in-between. Then it just drones on for another dull hour before dropping another inexplicable, shocking moment and it rinses and repeats this process throughout the entire series.
*SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*
This also applies to the last episode, which ends with such a nonsensical, out-of-nowhere twist that is never justified or explained. It is a classic example of having a twist, simply for the sake of ending on a twist. A good twist ending makes a reveal that causes everything that the viewer has seen so far click into place, it explains everything at once and that is why endings to stories like Fight Club, Mr Robot and The Sixth Sense are so satisfying. This makes the viewer want to go back and re-watch the film or series again with the new knowledge of what is going to happen in their mind in order to see it from a different perspective and spot the hints that point towards the big reveal. A bad twist ending drops a bomb abruptly and offers no explanation to the bombshell and leaves the viewer baffled and annoyed.
That is what happens with Sharp Objects' ending. There is absolutely no precedent to Amma being the killer. When Adora got arrested, it was underwhelming but there was at least some precedent for Adora to be the killer based on her other messed up behaviour, which provided some explanation, but Amma makes literally no sense. They could honestly have picked any other character on the show to be the killer and it would have made more sense. There is a weird post credits scene that I feel that was put in as a half-arsed explanation for the nonsensical twist, but it really doesn't help matters any. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know if the ending plays out the same way as the source material, or if it makes any more sense in the book, but in the show it is a mess.
Overall this is a slow burn that isn't even worth the slog of getting through thanks to a hugely disappointing payoff. The ending is the main reason that this only gets a 5. One of the most overrated things I've seen this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Yards (2000) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Yards starts when Leo (Wahlberg) gets released from prison, needing to lock down a job his Aunt Kitty (Dunaway) sets him up with her husband Frank Olchin (Caan) who runs a railway construction company in Queens. Without the skills set, he can’t be given a job, but his bag man Willie (Phoenix) who is also Leo’s best friend recruits him to do the dirty work for the company.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Memoirs of a Geisha in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Memoirs of a Geisha is a historical fiction book published on September 27th 1997. Told in the first person Viewpoint of Geisha Sayuri (Original name Chiyo), It follows her journey from her childhood in a fishing village on the coast of Japan, forcibly taken to a Hanamachi in Gion Kyoto and raised to become a Geisha before experiencing the horrors of WW2 and being a Geisha during the hard work of rebuilding after a harrowing defeat.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
John Garrett (27 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2017
Tom Holland (2 more)
The villain (thank god)
The script
No real stakes (1 more)
Not enough fighting scenes
Spiderman has never been better
Contains spoilers, click to show
Tom Holland is fantastic. Never has writing a review been so releaving. After the car wrecks that were the first 2 amazing Spiderman movies we finally get a great depiction of the friendly neighbourhood Spiderman. Tom played both the quick witted Spiderman and nerdy Peter Parker fantastically and actually looks like a high school kid.
Michael Keaton plays another winged comic book character in the vulture who unlike other marvel villains added some gravitas and was not just a throw away. He played almost a sympathetic villain where you understand his motivations.
The story was solid. We actually got to see a teenage Peter Parker with teenage worries in high school rather than trying to skip over his school life quickly in other iterations of the character. His high school sidekick Ned was a great comic relief and in my opinion created most of the laughs in this film.
One major worry going in was that iron man would steel the show. Luckily Robert Downey Jr was used almost sparingly and was there in just a mentoring capacity which was good to see.
Overall this was a funny, charming story with a great portrayal of one of the world's most loved characters.
Michael Keaton plays another winged comic book character in the vulture who unlike other marvel villains added some gravitas and was not just a throw away. He played almost a sympathetic villain where you understand his motivations.
The story was solid. We actually got to see a teenage Peter Parker with teenage worries in high school rather than trying to skip over his school life quickly in other iterations of the character. His high school sidekick Ned was a great comic relief and in my opinion created most of the laughs in this film.
One major worry going in was that iron man would steel the show. Luckily Robert Downey Jr was used almost sparingly and was there in just a mentoring capacity which was good to see.
Overall this was a funny, charming story with a great portrayal of one of the world's most loved characters.
TM
Toni Morrison: Life, Liberty, and Literature
Book
Toni Morrison is one of the most celebrated living authors. Her work, for which she received the...
What Do I Know?: People, Politics and the Arts
Book
Since his successful spell running the National Theatre, Richard Eyre's career as a director of...
Long Weekend: Life in the English Country House Between the Wars
Book
"[A] fantastically readable and endlessly fascinating book...Delicious, occasionally fantastical,...
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest: a Novel
8.1
Rate It
Book
Pitching an extraordinary battle between cruel authority and a rebellious free spirit, Ken Kesey's...