Search
The Notorious Mrs. Clem: Murder and Money in the Gilded Age
Book
In September 1868, the remains of Jacob and Nancy Jane Young were found lying near the banks of...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated JFK (1991) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
"๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ด ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ด ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ญ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ต. ๐๐ต'๐ด ๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ."
Jesus Christ. Back when conspiracy theories were good, now all it takes is a shitty, debunked, and obviously phony Facebook meme to get people to believe 5G causes coronavirus or whatever stupid shit Trump retweets from hate groups this week. On the other hand you have this seemingly never-ending and soul-stirring barrage of lies, cover-ups, threats, deaths/suicides/murders, extensively planned attacks, and general anguish which still plays more truthful and earnest than most things that come out of the CIA, White House, and/or FBI. Not a single word wasted, crams more exhilaration into a group of people talking at a dinner table than the vast majority of MCU 'action' scenes - and the meticulous, airtight extent of the writing is nothing less than utterly flooring. As a result of the beyond exceptional jam-packed conspiracy narrative I can't say any of these characters are that compelling in their own regard (even though the cast is an unforgettable all-timer of screen legends), but given the end result it's a fair tradeoff for the type of movie that bangs around in your head like a rubber bullet after watching it. Feverish, hot-blooded, commanding provocation - even made *my* ass paranoid. The final thirty minutes of - essentially - one long courtroom speech shouldn't work in theory; but not only is it thrilling as can be (and *that* moment just pierces your mortal soul), but it offers some of Costner's finest work throughout his entire career as an actor. Imagine this coming out and still getting shit like ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ, ๐๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ฃ๐บ, and ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐บ - would have loved to have been there for the ensuing shitstorm this caused back in its day, must have been legendary. So great that it *actually* caused a big deal change in government legislation immediately upon release.
Jesus Christ. Back when conspiracy theories were good, now all it takes is a shitty, debunked, and obviously phony Facebook meme to get people to believe 5G causes coronavirus or whatever stupid shit Trump retweets from hate groups this week. On the other hand you have this seemingly never-ending and soul-stirring barrage of lies, cover-ups, threats, deaths/suicides/murders, extensively planned attacks, and general anguish which still plays more truthful and earnest than most things that come out of the CIA, White House, and/or FBI. Not a single word wasted, crams more exhilaration into a group of people talking at a dinner table than the vast majority of MCU 'action' scenes - and the meticulous, airtight extent of the writing is nothing less than utterly flooring. As a result of the beyond exceptional jam-packed conspiracy narrative I can't say any of these characters are that compelling in their own regard (even though the cast is an unforgettable all-timer of screen legends), but given the end result it's a fair tradeoff for the type of movie that bangs around in your head like a rubber bullet after watching it. Feverish, hot-blooded, commanding provocation - even made *my* ass paranoid. The final thirty minutes of - essentially - one long courtroom speech shouldn't work in theory; but not only is it thrilling as can be (and *that* moment just pierces your mortal soul), but it offers some of Costner's finest work throughout his entire career as an actor. Imagine this coming out and still getting shit like ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ, ๐๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ฃ๐บ, and ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐บ - would have loved to have been there for the ensuing shitstorm this caused back in its day, must have been legendary. So great that it *actually* caused a big deal change in government legislation immediately upon release.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Where the Crawdads Sing in Books
Aug 12, 2021
A haunting story of survival
Kya Clark is very young when her mother leaves, abandoning her to their marshland home and her violent father. His presence is in her life is scattered, at best, and Kya mostly raises herself, learning about the land, the wildlife, and the swamp on her own. She forms attachment to few, but meets two very different young men from town whom she feels drawn to. In 1969, one of those men is found dead and Kya--always a source of gossip among the locals--is the prime suspect.
I'm not sure there's much I can add to the many reviews of this popular book. I read it as part of my new reading project--choosing books off my shelves based on their Goodreads rankings. This is my third book of the project, forcing me out of my comfort zone and to try books in genres I don't usually read! I'm glad I finally read it-- it's a very mesmerizing tale, and Kya's improbable life on the marsh quickly drew me in.
This is part a character-driven and coming of age story combined with a mystery and courtroom drama. It covers a lot of Kya's life, but focuses on her growing up in the marsh. There's a lot that seems hard to believe--especially that no one does anything to help this parent-less child, growing up alone in the marsh. The book covers a lot of heady topics, including racism, sexual assault, and more. Its description of nature and the marsh are beautiful. At the heart of the story is Kya, and it's impossible not to root for our heroine. She's tough and smart, and the way she loves her marsh is simply beautiful.
Overall, rating on pure enjoyment, I really liked this book. If I don't delve too deep into pondering about the inner workings of the plot, this was a great read--mesmerizing, haunting, and lovely. 4+ stars.
I'm not sure there's much I can add to the many reviews of this popular book. I read it as part of my new reading project--choosing books off my shelves based on their Goodreads rankings. This is my third book of the project, forcing me out of my comfort zone and to try books in genres I don't usually read! I'm glad I finally read it-- it's a very mesmerizing tale, and Kya's improbable life on the marsh quickly drew me in.
This is part a character-driven and coming of age story combined with a mystery and courtroom drama. It covers a lot of Kya's life, but focuses on her growing up in the marsh. There's a lot that seems hard to believe--especially that no one does anything to help this parent-less child, growing up alone in the marsh. The book covers a lot of heady topics, including racism, sexual assault, and more. Its description of nature and the marsh are beautiful. At the heart of the story is Kya, and it's impossible not to root for our heroine. She's tough and smart, and the way she loves her marsh is simply beautiful.
Overall, rating on pure enjoyment, I really liked this book. If I don't delve too deep into pondering about the inner workings of the plot, this was a great read--mesmerizing, haunting, and lovely. 4+ stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
โTrialโ is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
RษX Regent (349 KP) rated Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
โHe that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.โ
It has been over 20 years since I first saw this as teenager, but watching it again with little memory of the specifics, I was both a little disappointed but also very impressed.
With a title like โJudgement at Nuremberg,โ you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the โJudges Trialโ.
Here, Spencer Traceyโs U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930โs and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitlerโs NAZIโs to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stoneโs throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramerโs cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
With a title like โJudgement at Nuremberg,โ you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the โJudges Trialโ.
Here, Spencer Traceyโs U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930โs and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitlerโs NAZIโs to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stoneโs throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramerโs cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
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! Iโve never read one quite like it. Not only do we have a male narrator named Mike, and see things from his point of view, weโre 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 โCraveโ, 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 sheโs 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 wasnโt 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 Mikeโs 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 didnโt understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you donโt mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mikeโs learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesnโt mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. Heโs also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end youโll realise Mikeโs attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although itโs 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. Itโs all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist awayโฆ This would translate well to film.
The book begins like any other but it wasnโt 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 Mikeโs 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 didnโt understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you donโt mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mikeโs learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesnโt mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. Heโs also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end youโll realise Mikeโs attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although itโs 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. Itโs all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist awayโฆ This would translate well to film.
The Man with the Branded Hand: The Life of Jonathan Walker, Abolitionist
Book
Sailing around the Florida Keys in 1844, forty-five-year-old Jonathan Walker had a price on his...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Amistad (1997) in Movies
Aug 13, 2020
Give Us Us Free
Slaves are put on trial when they start a mutiny on the ship bringing them over to America. Although a little long in the tooth, Amistad is a memorable movie that gives you something to root for.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldnโt have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so itโs no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. Itโs riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. Itโs a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldnโt have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so itโs no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. Itโs riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. Itโs a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Accused (1988) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: We start The Accused by seeing Sarah (Foster) running from a bar desperately looking for help before she gets asked all the intimate questions after a rape. District prosecutor Kathryn Murphy takes over the case and takes Sarah back to the crime scene to identify the suspects. While Kathryn puts a case together she learns more about Sarahโs character and while the defence makes out Sarah is just telling a story. We see Kathryn and Lieutenant Duncan (Mulligan) try to investigate what happened they find out there are no witnesses and the case is struggling to come together. After the suspects get put in jail for a reduced charge of reckless endangerment Sarah pushes for more and after a confrontation with one of the men who got off cheered on, Kathryn opens a new case against the people who cheered on and watched leading to the ability to charge the rapist.
What The Accused shows us is however a story sounds it doesnโt mean it isnโt true. We have to let the prosecutors create a case before we judge who is guilty. It shows we need to stand up for what is right and not everything is what it seems. We see how difficult it can be for the victim against such a large amount of suspects who unite. We see how the prosecutor risks everything to get the truth about the night after finally seeing the light about what really happened. This case could break her career but as she is doing the right thing it proves to be the right thing. A big plus The Accused uses is not focusing on any of the men involved we a left to only see and hear about their actions. The Accused is a great story about fighting for what is right and how monstrous people can be. (9/10)
Actor Review
Kelly McGillis: Kathryn Murphy the district prosecutor who will fight for justice but only once she has learned all the facts. She agrees to plea agreement for the rapist but once challenged by Sarah she decides to go after the people who cheered them on. Kelly gives a good performance searching for the truth. (8/10)
kelly
Jodie Foster: Sarah Tobias the victim who has to go through the rape only to be left questioned by people on her side and the people against her. Sarah refused to back down and wants to see the people pay when she finally gets the chance on front of a courtroom full of people. Jodie gives a great performance that she full deserved the Oscar she won. (10/10)
jodie
Support Cast: Where The Accused chooses not to focus on the rapist we donโt meet too many supporting characters, we only see their actions and hear how other people saw them.
Director Review: Jonathan Kaplan โ Jonathan does a great job directing The Accused he focuses on the victim and the case being built against the rapist. (9/10)
Crime: The crime The Accused focuses on was based on a real case and shows the seriousness of it. (9/10)
Drama: The Accused uses the effects to create the drama of what happened to the people involved. (9/10)
Settings: The Accused uses the settings well, we see The Mill where the crime happens, the office to see how the world is different for our victim, the small beat up house the victims lives in showing that she would be considered lower than the people involved and almost not important and the home of the prosecutor which shows us the difference in working class the two women have. (9/10)
Suggestion: I would suggest watching The Accused as it shows the victims problems after the assault rather than trying to make a monstrous villain for a crime film. (Watch)
Best Part: The Courtroom
Worst Part: The Deal
Believability: Based on a real case a young woman suffered through. (9/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Jodie Foster won Best Actress.
Box Office: $32 Million
Budget: $6 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 51 Minutes
Tagline: On April 18th 1987, Sarah Tobias stops for a drink at a bar called The Mill.
Trivia: Upon seeing a pre-screening of the film, Jodie Foster thought her performance as Sarah Tobias was so awful that she immediately began preparing for and taking the GREโs for graduate school. She was prepared to leave her film career behind and focus on academiaโฆuntil she won the Academy Award for her performance.
Overall: Would you fight for the truth
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/28/the-accused-1988/
What The Accused shows us is however a story sounds it doesnโt mean it isnโt true. We have to let the prosecutors create a case before we judge who is guilty. It shows we need to stand up for what is right and not everything is what it seems. We see how difficult it can be for the victim against such a large amount of suspects who unite. We see how the prosecutor risks everything to get the truth about the night after finally seeing the light about what really happened. This case could break her career but as she is doing the right thing it proves to be the right thing. A big plus The Accused uses is not focusing on any of the men involved we a left to only see and hear about their actions. The Accused is a great story about fighting for what is right and how monstrous people can be. (9/10)
Actor Review
Kelly McGillis: Kathryn Murphy the district prosecutor who will fight for justice but only once she has learned all the facts. She agrees to plea agreement for the rapist but once challenged by Sarah she decides to go after the people who cheered them on. Kelly gives a good performance searching for the truth. (8/10)
kelly
Jodie Foster: Sarah Tobias the victim who has to go through the rape only to be left questioned by people on her side and the people against her. Sarah refused to back down and wants to see the people pay when she finally gets the chance on front of a courtroom full of people. Jodie gives a great performance that she full deserved the Oscar she won. (10/10)
jodie
Support Cast: Where The Accused chooses not to focus on the rapist we donโt meet too many supporting characters, we only see their actions and hear how other people saw them.
Director Review: Jonathan Kaplan โ Jonathan does a great job directing The Accused he focuses on the victim and the case being built against the rapist. (9/10)
Crime: The crime The Accused focuses on was based on a real case and shows the seriousness of it. (9/10)
Drama: The Accused uses the effects to create the drama of what happened to the people involved. (9/10)
Settings: The Accused uses the settings well, we see The Mill where the crime happens, the office to see how the world is different for our victim, the small beat up house the victims lives in showing that she would be considered lower than the people involved and almost not important and the home of the prosecutor which shows us the difference in working class the two women have. (9/10)
Suggestion: I would suggest watching The Accused as it shows the victims problems after the assault rather than trying to make a monstrous villain for a crime film. (Watch)
Best Part: The Courtroom
Worst Part: The Deal
Believability: Based on a real case a young woman suffered through. (9/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Jodie Foster won Best Actress.
Box Office: $32 Million
Budget: $6 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 51 Minutes
Tagline: On April 18th 1987, Sarah Tobias stops for a drink at a bar called The Mill.
Trivia: Upon seeing a pre-screening of the film, Jodie Foster thought her performance as Sarah Tobias was so awful that she immediately began preparing for and taking the GREโs for graduate school. She was prepared to leave her film career behind and focus on academiaโฆuntil she won the Academy Award for her performance.
Overall: Would you fight for the truth
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/28/the-accused-1988/
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Gray Mountain in Books
May 10, 2018
Samantha Kofer is a real estate attorney working for a huge law firm in New York City. When all of the banks go belly up so does Samantha's job. She was given the option to being furloughed for one year and during that year, she is encouraged to volunteer during this year off at a non-profit that the firm has chosen.
Trying to find the right place to volunteer has been difficult since there are so many out of work lawyers who are all going through the same thing. She found "The Mountain Legal Aid Clinic[who]ran its low-budget operations from an abandoned hardware store on Main Street in Brady, Virginia, population twenty-two hundred and declining with each census Brady, was in southwest, Virginia, Appalachia, coal country."
In Brady, Samantha works with Mattie and Annette and meets many of their clients who are poor people in need of everything from simple divorces and wills to black lung disease claims Mattie's nephew, Donovan, is also in Brady and his firm fights coal companies tooth and nail for the people of coal country who have been destroyed by their illegal practices. There are a lot of things that happen that help to shape Samantha into a more respectable lawyer, but they don't come without great loss.
John Grisham likes to get the heart of the matter, he likes to grip at your heartstrings so that you can feel the characters that he is portraying. For a big New York City attorney, though, Samantha is not really a character I got to enjoy as much as I thought I would. She seemed a bit of a wimp in some instances. Whining about never setting foot in a courtroom or drafting a will. I wanted to jump in the book and smack her one good time. Whether or not you have done these things, you are a lawyer, and is this not in your job description? This is one of the worse John Grisham books I have read. It didn't have the same go getter attitude that the other books have.
Overall, the book kept me interested and wanting to know what was going to happen next. There were parts that had me on the edge of my seat. I'm wondering if there is going to be more from Samantha Kofer, because the story seemed unfinished.
First title in Take Control of Your TBR 2015!
Trying to find the right place to volunteer has been difficult since there are so many out of work lawyers who are all going through the same thing. She found "The Mountain Legal Aid Clinic[who]ran its low-budget operations from an abandoned hardware store on Main Street in Brady, Virginia, population twenty-two hundred and declining with each census Brady, was in southwest, Virginia, Appalachia, coal country."
In Brady, Samantha works with Mattie and Annette and meets many of their clients who are poor people in need of everything from simple divorces and wills to black lung disease claims Mattie's nephew, Donovan, is also in Brady and his firm fights coal companies tooth and nail for the people of coal country who have been destroyed by their illegal practices. There are a lot of things that happen that help to shape Samantha into a more respectable lawyer, but they don't come without great loss.
John Grisham likes to get the heart of the matter, he likes to grip at your heartstrings so that you can feel the characters that he is portraying. For a big New York City attorney, though, Samantha is not really a character I got to enjoy as much as I thought I would. She seemed a bit of a wimp in some instances. Whining about never setting foot in a courtroom or drafting a will. I wanted to jump in the book and smack her one good time. Whether or not you have done these things, you are a lawyer, and is this not in your job description? This is one of the worse John Grisham books I have read. It didn't have the same go getter attitude that the other books have.
Overall, the book kept me interested and wanting to know what was going to happen next. There were parts that had me on the edge of my seat. I'm wondering if there is going to be more from Samantha Kofer, because the story seemed unfinished.
First title in Take Control of Your TBR 2015!