Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated In Safe Hands in Books
Mar 19, 2019 (Updated Sep 29, 2019)
love love LOVED this one!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Mav is. . . .broken, and thinks fixing things is downing a bottle of Jack. Crashing on his sister's sofa isn't doing him or her any favours. When Jamie calls him out to do something for her, Mav really has to dig deep to get out of his stupor. Meeting the new client, however, does wonders. Deacon needs some help. After a scandal last year left him penniless, he can't afford to pay for the protection he needs. someone is out to get him, and the bodies keep piling up. Mav needs to up his game, and when the threat comes to a 2 year old child, Deacon's niece, both Mav and Deacon know they would do anything to keep her safe, even if it means Mav breaks Deacon's heart.
I am, personally, not in a good place. Not a BAD place, just not doing so well and my reading is suffering. I said I would read this before the poop hit the fan, and I was concerned I would not be able to give this book my full attention, or worse, not be able to finish it at all.
BUT!!!
I bloody LOVED this book!
Mav is, by his own admission, one drink short of becoming an alcoholic. His sister takes him in, and he's drowning his sorrows every night. Losing his career, and his leg, after a helicopter was bombed while he was the pilot has soured Mav to life and he just wants to be left alone. His sister, Jamie, ain't having none of it! She ropes him into talking to a possible new client, while she attends another job for her private investigations business. Deacon, lead singer of a boy band who was spectacularly disgraced last, is the client. A reporter twisted some truths, and Deacon's life came crashing down around his ears. He lost custody of his niece. Now, no one believes him, that someone is following him. When things escalate to a break in at his flat, and said reporter turns up dead, the police start to take notice. All the while, as Deacon continues to fall, Mav holds him up, keeps him close.
I loved that things crept up on Deacon and Mav, the feelings they begin to have for each other. It's not that thunderbolt and lightning thing: more a sweeping rain storm that starts off as drizzle then increases in it's intensity til neither Mav nor Deacon can deny it any longer. Loved that, after the initial shock of seeing Mav's face, Deacon is like: okay, scars make you, YOU. Mav is concerned about the other scars, the ones on his leg and residual and again, Deacon is not at all bothered. It makes Mav see that maybe, just maybe, they can make it work.
I must admit, I had an inkling who might be doing what they were doing to Deacon, very early on. Something they said set off bells and it was great being able to watch it all unfold. I have no idea WHAT this person said, I really don't, but something they said went ding ding ding and when Mav puts the pieces together, oh my! That man's alpha-protect-whats0mine instinct went into massive overdrive! Loved that, when it all went down, Mav and Deacon both knew, with just a look, that they might not come out of this alive.
LOVED that the baddie gets a voice!
Mav and Deacon's story carries some difficult topics: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, PTSD, murder (in some detail from the baddie!) All difficult topics, but very well written, and the research shows. I was particularly impressed with the research into Mav's accident, his injuries and what he went through after losing his leg. That doesn't always come across in a way a lay person such as myself can fully comprehend, but Ms Sue nailed it here!
This book may well have been the one to kick start my ability to write a coherent review, or at least I think it makes sense!
5 full and shiny stars!
Michael Pauley narrates.
Having READ this book previously, what I was particularly looking for was the baddie’s voice. When I read it, something they said made my brain go ding, ding, fire alarm in the head, ding and I KNEW that this person was the baddie. HERE, in audio, I wanted to see if I could pick up just WHAT they said to make all the alarms go.
And I got . . . nothing. The voice gave nothing away! Pauley NAILED that, he really did! So, while I was glad I didn’t get what they said to set me off, I’m also a little miffed 😊
As for Deacon and Mav, Pauley nailed those guys too! Mav’s voice is deep and dark, much like the man. I had a whole different voice in my head when I was reading, but once Mav speaks with the voice Pauley gave him, I knew mine was all kinds of wrong and Pauley’s was the RIGHT voice for Mav. My voice for Deacon was very much like Pauley’s for him, though.
Pauley’s reading voice works very well for my shitty hearing, rolling deep and clear and even. There was no dipping for the voices, even when they were very emotional. The emotions still came across very well, just sometimes, when characters get particularly emotional, the voices dip slightly, but not here.
Michael Pauley is a firm favourite of a narrator and coupled with Victoria Sue’s work?? It can only get. . .
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Mav is. . . .broken, and thinks fixing things is downing a bottle of Jack. Crashing on his sister's sofa isn't doing him or her any favours. When Jamie calls him out to do something for her, Mav really has to dig deep to get out of his stupor. Meeting the new client, however, does wonders. Deacon needs some help. After a scandal last year left him penniless, he can't afford to pay for the protection he needs. someone is out to get him, and the bodies keep piling up. Mav needs to up his game, and when the threat comes to a 2 year old child, Deacon's niece, both Mav and Deacon know they would do anything to keep her safe, even if it means Mav breaks Deacon's heart.
I am, personally, not in a good place. Not a BAD place, just not doing so well and my reading is suffering. I said I would read this before the poop hit the fan, and I was concerned I would not be able to give this book my full attention, or worse, not be able to finish it at all.
BUT!!!
I bloody LOVED this book!
Mav is, by his own admission, one drink short of becoming an alcoholic. His sister takes him in, and he's drowning his sorrows every night. Losing his career, and his leg, after a helicopter was bombed while he was the pilot has soured Mav to life and he just wants to be left alone. His sister, Jamie, ain't having none of it! She ropes him into talking to a possible new client, while she attends another job for her private investigations business. Deacon, lead singer of a boy band who was spectacularly disgraced last, is the client. A reporter twisted some truths, and Deacon's life came crashing down around his ears. He lost custody of his niece. Now, no one believes him, that someone is following him. When things escalate to a break in at his flat, and said reporter turns up dead, the police start to take notice. All the while, as Deacon continues to fall, Mav holds him up, keeps him close.
I loved that things crept up on Deacon and Mav, the feelings they begin to have for each other. It's not that thunderbolt and lightning thing: more a sweeping rain storm that starts off as drizzle then increases in it's intensity til neither Mav nor Deacon can deny it any longer. Loved that, after the initial shock of seeing Mav's face, Deacon is like: okay, scars make you, YOU. Mav is concerned about the other scars, the ones on his leg and residual and again, Deacon is not at all bothered. It makes Mav see that maybe, just maybe, they can make it work.
I must admit, I had an inkling who might be doing what they were doing to Deacon, very early on. Something they said set off bells and it was great being able to watch it all unfold. I have no idea WHAT this person said, I really don't, but something they said went ding ding ding and when Mav puts the pieces together, oh my! That man's alpha-protect-whats0mine instinct went into massive overdrive! Loved that, when it all went down, Mav and Deacon both knew, with just a look, that they might not come out of this alive.
LOVED that the baddie gets a voice!
Mav and Deacon's story carries some difficult topics: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, PTSD, murder (in some detail from the baddie!) All difficult topics, but very well written, and the research shows. I was particularly impressed with the research into Mav's accident, his injuries and what he went through after losing his leg. That doesn't always come across in a way a lay person such as myself can fully comprehend, but Ms Sue nailed it here!
This book may well have been the one to kick start my ability to write a coherent review, or at least I think it makes sense!
5 full and shiny stars!
Michael Pauley narrates.
Having READ this book previously, what I was particularly looking for was the baddie’s voice. When I read it, something they said made my brain go ding, ding, fire alarm in the head, ding and I KNEW that this person was the baddie. HERE, in audio, I wanted to see if I could pick up just WHAT they said to make all the alarms go.
And I got . . . nothing. The voice gave nothing away! Pauley NAILED that, he really did! So, while I was glad I didn’t get what they said to set me off, I’m also a little miffed 😊
As for Deacon and Mav, Pauley nailed those guys too! Mav’s voice is deep and dark, much like the man. I had a whole different voice in my head when I was reading, but once Mav speaks with the voice Pauley gave him, I knew mine was all kinds of wrong and Pauley’s was the RIGHT voice for Mav. My voice for Deacon was very much like Pauley’s for him, though.
Pauley’s reading voice works very well for my shitty hearing, rolling deep and clear and even. There was no dipping for the voices, even when they were very emotional. The emotions still came across very well, just sometimes, when characters get particularly emotional, the voices dip slightly, but not here.
Michael Pauley is a firm favourite of a narrator and coupled with Victoria Sue’s work?? It can only get. . .
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Hadley (567 KP) rated Hell House in Books
Sep 3, 2020
" 'It's the Mount Everest of haunted houses, you might say. There were two attempts to investigate it, one in 1931, the other in 1940. Both were disasters. Eight people involved in those attempts were killed, committed suicide, or went insane. Only one survived, and I have no idea how sound he is- - -Benjamin Fischer, one of the two who'll be with me.' " Barrett, our main character, explains before setting out to investigate the Belasco House in the paranormal novel, Hell House.
At the beginning of the book, Barrett is speaking to a rich man named Deutsch, who is on his death bed, and wanting to know if life exists after death:
" 'It isn't lies I want,' Deutsch told him. 'I'll buy the answer, either way. So long as it's definitive.'
Barrett felt a roil of despair. 'How can I convince you, either way?' He was compelled to say it.
'By giving me facts,' Deutsch answered irritably.
'Where am I to find them? I'm a physicist. In the twenty years I've studied parapsychology, I've yet to - - -'
'If they exist,' Deutsch interrupted,' you'll find them in the only place on earth I know of where survival has yet to be refuted. The Belasco house in Maine.' "
Along with Barrett and Fischer a well-known medium named Florence and Barrett's wife, Edith join them on their trip to the Belasco house. Fischer is also a medium, who gets prodded at by Florence for refusing to use his 'gift:'
" 'You were the most powerful physical medium this country has ever known, Ben.'
'Still am, Florence. Just a little bit more careful now, that's all. I suggest the same approach for you. You're walking around this house like an open nerve. When you really do hit something, it'll tear your insides out. This place isn't called Hell House for nothing, you know. It intends to kill every one of us, so you'd damn well better learn to protect yourself until you're ready. Or you'll just be one more victim on the list.' "
Florence's need to prove that spirits exist to Barrett, the skeptic of the group, permeates throughout the entire book. She allows him to subject her to entirely naked pat-downs and the use of all sorts of instruments while she becomes possessed by spirits in the house. She slowly begins to lose her patience with Barrett every time she speaks with him about the possibility of ghosts existing until one day she becomes so infuriated with him that the entire dining area becomes a minefield of seemingly unaided flying dishes.
Even after this incident, Barrett refuses to believe that the Belasco house is haunted and that spirits exist. As the reader continues on through the story, Barrett's skepticism becomes a little annoying with the amount of paranormal things that happen, especially how he has a scientific reasoning for everything: " 'Making use of the power in the room,' he[Barrett] said. 'Converting it to poltergeist-type phenomena directed at me.' " As Fischer and Florence continue to find evidence of paranormal activity, Barrett stays focused on a machine that he invented to arrive soon, which he states will prove his theory of energy causing the 'hauntings,' rather than spirits, while avoiding all evidence that may prove otherwise.
Early on, Florence becomes preoccupied with a spirit in the house, who she believes to be the son of Belasco (the man who owned the house). After coming in contact with this spirit, physical harm starts to come to Florence, one such incident is of something in the night biting her breasts hard enough to leave teeth marks. Barrett and the others find her, crying in bed during this, where she states that Belasco is punishing her for finding and communicating with his son.
During all of this, Edith seems to come under an influence at the house, which causes her to start to drink heavily although she's never touched a drop of alcohol in her life due to an alcoholic father. One incident with a drunk Edith, she comes onto Fischer in a way that makes the reader question whether or not this is a spirit taking her over, or if this is what Edith is like when she's drunk. When Fischer confronts Barrett about his wife and her possible possession by the house, Barrett refuses to see it as that:
" 'Irrelevant?' Fischer looked amazed. 'What the hell do you mean, irrelevant? Whatever's going on is getting to your wife. It's gotten to Florence, and it's gotten to you. Or maybe you haven't noticed.'
Barrett regarded him in silence, his expression hard. 'I've noticed a number of things, Mr. Fischer,' he finally said. 'One of which is that Mr. Deutsch is wasting approximately a third of his money.' "
Although Hell House has all of the great paranormal tropes in it, it objectifies women almost to an extreme, and to a point that it isn't believable at all to the reader: the Belasco house is one of depravity, including sexual interactions, but Belasco's guests were both female and male, yet only sexual things (albeit crude) only happen to Florence and Edith, neither Barrett or Fischer are affected. Hell House is a great story with an even greater villain, but Matheson really ruined the story with his crude fantasies about women. I absolutely think this book is better than the Haunting of Hill House because the scares are better while Haunting lacked a lot of them. If you can get past a horny man's fantasies, then the book is very enjoyable.
At the beginning of the book, Barrett is speaking to a rich man named Deutsch, who is on his death bed, and wanting to know if life exists after death:
" 'It isn't lies I want,' Deutsch told him. 'I'll buy the answer, either way. So long as it's definitive.'
Barrett felt a roil of despair. 'How can I convince you, either way?' He was compelled to say it.
'By giving me facts,' Deutsch answered irritably.
'Where am I to find them? I'm a physicist. In the twenty years I've studied parapsychology, I've yet to - - -'
'If they exist,' Deutsch interrupted,' you'll find them in the only place on earth I know of where survival has yet to be refuted. The Belasco house in Maine.' "
Along with Barrett and Fischer a well-known medium named Florence and Barrett's wife, Edith join them on their trip to the Belasco house. Fischer is also a medium, who gets prodded at by Florence for refusing to use his 'gift:'
" 'You were the most powerful physical medium this country has ever known, Ben.'
'Still am, Florence. Just a little bit more careful now, that's all. I suggest the same approach for you. You're walking around this house like an open nerve. When you really do hit something, it'll tear your insides out. This place isn't called Hell House for nothing, you know. It intends to kill every one of us, so you'd damn well better learn to protect yourself until you're ready. Or you'll just be one more victim on the list.' "
Florence's need to prove that spirits exist to Barrett, the skeptic of the group, permeates throughout the entire book. She allows him to subject her to entirely naked pat-downs and the use of all sorts of instruments while she becomes possessed by spirits in the house. She slowly begins to lose her patience with Barrett every time she speaks with him about the possibility of ghosts existing until one day she becomes so infuriated with him that the entire dining area becomes a minefield of seemingly unaided flying dishes.
Even after this incident, Barrett refuses to believe that the Belasco house is haunted and that spirits exist. As the reader continues on through the story, Barrett's skepticism becomes a little annoying with the amount of paranormal things that happen, especially how he has a scientific reasoning for everything: " 'Making use of the power in the room,' he[Barrett] said. 'Converting it to poltergeist-type phenomena directed at me.' " As Fischer and Florence continue to find evidence of paranormal activity, Barrett stays focused on a machine that he invented to arrive soon, which he states will prove his theory of energy causing the 'hauntings,' rather than spirits, while avoiding all evidence that may prove otherwise.
Early on, Florence becomes preoccupied with a spirit in the house, who she believes to be the son of Belasco (the man who owned the house). After coming in contact with this spirit, physical harm starts to come to Florence, one such incident is of something in the night biting her breasts hard enough to leave teeth marks. Barrett and the others find her, crying in bed during this, where she states that Belasco is punishing her for finding and communicating with his son.
During all of this, Edith seems to come under an influence at the house, which causes her to start to drink heavily although she's never touched a drop of alcohol in her life due to an alcoholic father. One incident with a drunk Edith, she comes onto Fischer in a way that makes the reader question whether or not this is a spirit taking her over, or if this is what Edith is like when she's drunk. When Fischer confronts Barrett about his wife and her possible possession by the house, Barrett refuses to see it as that:
" 'Irrelevant?' Fischer looked amazed. 'What the hell do you mean, irrelevant? Whatever's going on is getting to your wife. It's gotten to Florence, and it's gotten to you. Or maybe you haven't noticed.'
Barrett regarded him in silence, his expression hard. 'I've noticed a number of things, Mr. Fischer,' he finally said. 'One of which is that Mr. Deutsch is wasting approximately a third of his money.' "
Although Hell House has all of the great paranormal tropes in it, it objectifies women almost to an extreme, and to a point that it isn't believable at all to the reader: the Belasco house is one of depravity, including sexual interactions, but Belasco's guests were both female and male, yet only sexual things (albeit crude) only happen to Florence and Edith, neither Barrett or Fischer are affected. Hell House is a great story with an even greater villain, but Matheson really ruined the story with his crude fantasies about women. I absolutely think this book is better than the Haunting of Hill House because the scares are better while Haunting lacked a lot of them. If you can get past a horny man's fantasies, then the book is very enjoyable.
Rob P (30 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 6, 2019
Sheer scope and spectacle (2 more)
satisfying conclusion to the Infinity/Avengers saga
Pretty much a 90 minute end battle scene
Unfair arc for some characters (1 more)
The end of an era! #cry
Love you 3000 - *Seriously - S P O I L E R S*
Contains spoilers, click to show
Well, what a long, strange, amazing trip it's been.
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Truly Madly Guilty in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Erika has the whole event planned: an afternoon tea with her friend, Clementine, Clementine's husband, Sam, and the couple's two young daughters, Holly and Ruby. She even has a glittery art table set up for the youngsters. But the day is derailed when Erika runs into her next-door neighbor, Vid, who invites both couples over for a last minute barbecue. Erika and her husband, Oliver, aren't the last minute types; besides, they had something they needed to talk about with Clementine and Sam. But, Erika feels like obligated to say yes. Clementine and Sam are secretly relieved, as Vid and his beautiful wife Tiffany are far more personable than Erika and Oliver. The afternoon starts off well enough; Tiffany and Vid's daughter, Dakota, is even happy enough to hang out with Holly and Ruby. But by the time the night is over, lives will be changed, and all the adults--Sam and Clementine in particular--will find themselves wishing they never attended this impromptu event.
So we all know the drill by now. Liane Moriarty is a well-known master of dramatic suspense, especially at capturing the tension that hides behind ordinary lives. I went through a period where I read all of Moriarty's books; [b:What Alice Forgot|6469165|What Alice Forgot|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1377159022s/6469165.jpg|6659752] and her last novel, [b:Big Little Lies|19486412|Big Little Lies|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1399582436s/19486412.jpg|27570886], rank as two of my particular favorites. Anyway, Moriarty has become rather famous in the book world, with [b:Big Little Lies|19486412|Big Little Lies|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1399582436s/19486412.jpg|27570886] being made into a 7-episode HBO TV series, starring Reese Witherspoon and Nicole Kidman.
Of course, with such fame comes great responsibility. And pressure. Can a new work live up to the hype and excitement of the previous? This one will divide readers. It certainly has all the hallmarks of a typical Moriarty novel: a cast of women (and men) living ordinary lives on the surface, with a hidden veneer beneath. There's a secret layer to all of Moriarty's characters, though the drama associated with those in [b:Truly Madly Guilty|26247008|Truly Madly Guilty|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1467061262s/26247008.jpg|49997474] may not live up to some of her other novels.
First of all, this book will frustrate you. The beginning is incredibly maddening, as Moriarty starts leading up to the events that happened at the barbecue... in slow, excruciating detail. As she does so, we alternate chapters with the present, with the point-of-view told from our various characters. We have Erika, a slightly repressed accountant whose life has been formed around her stressful childhood as the only daughter of her hoarder mother, and Erika's husband, Oliver, her equally steady mate, who grew up with alcoholic parents and longs for the same order in life as Erika. Clementine and Erika have been friends since childhood, when Clementine basically felt Erika's friendship was forced upon her by Clementine's social worker mother, who felt bad for Erika and her flea-infested home. Clementine is a cellist and a bit of a free spirit, but she's balanced by her more grounded husband Sam, who works in business at an energy drink company. They are parents to five-year-old Holly and two-year-old, Ruby. And then, finally, we have Erika and Oliver's neighbors, Vid and Tiffany. Swarthy, wealthy Vid is a joyous, open man who loves sharing his home (and his food) with friends and family. His gorgeous wife Tiffany is his pride and joy. Their quiet 10-year-old daughter, Dakota, just loves to read.
See how I just distracted you from the events of the barbecue by a description of the characters? Imagine that, for pages and pages! It's a great technique, don't get me wrong, but there was one point where I truly wanted to fling the book across the room. "JUST TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS!" I actually shouted in my (thankfully empty) bedroom. I've read some reviews that state that the big reveal, when it happens, isn't shocking enough, but I disagree: I think that event would certainly change my life and haunt my dreams (no more than that; a spoiler will truly ruin this book).
So while this novel can be a bit frustrating, it really is a Liane Moriarty book. It's compulsively readable. At first, I thought it was a very detailed look at three self-involved couples, but over time, I realized I had really fallen for Erika and Oliver and eventually, Tiffany and Vid, too (and Dakota, I loved Dakota!). Moriarty has a way of humanizing her characters and differentiating each from another: they all stand as individuals. Even Sam and Clementine, who were my least favorites, were their own people. It's the tiny details and pieces about each that she sticks in that really build your picture of each character in your mind. Much of the book takes place in the rain, and I could truly visualize each character and every event, unspooling, in this torrential Sydney downpour.
Overall, this book connected with me less on a dramatic, "oh my gosh" level (though that exists) but more on an emotional one. It speaks to the guilt we can all feel about life events--adults and kids alike--and potentially carry with us all of our days. Not a lot may happen in the book, per se, yet it's really a strong story of friendship, marriage, life, and loss. When I framed it in that perspective, versus looking purely for moments of dramatic tension, I realized I'd really enjoyed it. A strong 3.5 stars and definitely worth picking up. Just keep an open mind.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>;
So we all know the drill by now. Liane Moriarty is a well-known master of dramatic suspense, especially at capturing the tension that hides behind ordinary lives. I went through a period where I read all of Moriarty's books; [b:What Alice Forgot|6469165|What Alice Forgot|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1377159022s/6469165.jpg|6659752] and her last novel, [b:Big Little Lies|19486412|Big Little Lies|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1399582436s/19486412.jpg|27570886], rank as two of my particular favorites. Anyway, Moriarty has become rather famous in the book world, with [b:Big Little Lies|19486412|Big Little Lies|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1399582436s/19486412.jpg|27570886] being made into a 7-episode HBO TV series, starring Reese Witherspoon and Nicole Kidman.
Of course, with such fame comes great responsibility. And pressure. Can a new work live up to the hype and excitement of the previous? This one will divide readers. It certainly has all the hallmarks of a typical Moriarty novel: a cast of women (and men) living ordinary lives on the surface, with a hidden veneer beneath. There's a secret layer to all of Moriarty's characters, though the drama associated with those in [b:Truly Madly Guilty|26247008|Truly Madly Guilty|Liane Moriarty|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1467061262s/26247008.jpg|49997474] may not live up to some of her other novels.
First of all, this book will frustrate you. The beginning is incredibly maddening, as Moriarty starts leading up to the events that happened at the barbecue... in slow, excruciating detail. As she does so, we alternate chapters with the present, with the point-of-view told from our various characters. We have Erika, a slightly repressed accountant whose life has been formed around her stressful childhood as the only daughter of her hoarder mother, and Erika's husband, Oliver, her equally steady mate, who grew up with alcoholic parents and longs for the same order in life as Erika. Clementine and Erika have been friends since childhood, when Clementine basically felt Erika's friendship was forced upon her by Clementine's social worker mother, who felt bad for Erika and her flea-infested home. Clementine is a cellist and a bit of a free spirit, but she's balanced by her more grounded husband Sam, who works in business at an energy drink company. They are parents to five-year-old Holly and two-year-old, Ruby. And then, finally, we have Erika and Oliver's neighbors, Vid and Tiffany. Swarthy, wealthy Vid is a joyous, open man who loves sharing his home (and his food) with friends and family. His gorgeous wife Tiffany is his pride and joy. Their quiet 10-year-old daughter, Dakota, just loves to read.
See how I just distracted you from the events of the barbecue by a description of the characters? Imagine that, for pages and pages! It's a great technique, don't get me wrong, but there was one point where I truly wanted to fling the book across the room. "JUST TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS!" I actually shouted in my (thankfully empty) bedroom. I've read some reviews that state that the big reveal, when it happens, isn't shocking enough, but I disagree: I think that event would certainly change my life and haunt my dreams (no more than that; a spoiler will truly ruin this book).
So while this novel can be a bit frustrating, it really is a Liane Moriarty book. It's compulsively readable. At first, I thought it was a very detailed look at three self-involved couples, but over time, I realized I had really fallen for Erika and Oliver and eventually, Tiffany and Vid, too (and Dakota, I loved Dakota!). Moriarty has a way of humanizing her characters and differentiating each from another: they all stand as individuals. Even Sam and Clementine, who were my least favorites, were their own people. It's the tiny details and pieces about each that she sticks in that really build your picture of each character in your mind. Much of the book takes place in the rain, and I could truly visualize each character and every event, unspooling, in this torrential Sydney downpour.
Overall, this book connected with me less on a dramatic, "oh my gosh" level (though that exists) but more on an emotional one. It speaks to the guilt we can all feel about life events--adults and kids alike--and potentially carry with us all of our days. Not a lot may happen in the book, per se, yet it's really a strong story of friendship, marriage, life, and loss. When I framed it in that perspective, versus looking purely for moments of dramatic tension, I realized I'd really enjoyed it. A strong 3.5 stars and definitely worth picking up. Just keep an open mind.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
I first learned about you, Joe, when I sat one Sunday morning on Netflix and I could not keep my eyes off of the promo for this show about you fixating on a blonde woman. Naturally, I was intrigued and I had to learn about you, Joe, and how exactly you could see stalking as a way of getting close to someone and love them. I do wish you hadn't been a manager at a bookstore, Joe. I'm a booknerd, it was difficult to not like you, most of the time.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
It has "all the feels"
***There will be NO SPOILERS in this review***
AVENGERS: ENDGAME is an emotionally and artistically satisfying conclusion to 11 years and 22 films of the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE.
Closing out "Phase III" in the MCU, the concluding chapter for most of the "original" MCU characters/actors, ENDGAME picks up the Avengers story right after the conclusion of AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR - a film which saw our heroes lose the battle to Thanos, who snapped his fingers and half the living beings in the Universe vanished.
Instead of downplaying the grief that a survivor would feel, Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (veterans of many MCU films) wisely decide to "lean into" this grief which gives this film something that is surprising for a SuperHero film - emotional resonance. You grieve with these characters that you have come to know - and love - and share their pain and sorrow.
It's a wise choice for it adds a layer to this film that many Superhero films fail to achieve. Along with action, fun characters that you want to root for, interesting visuals and (are you listening DC?) - HUMOR, this film has "all the feels" (to steal a phrase) and will leave the MCU fan (both hardcore and casual) satisfied with the experience.
Also...interestingly enough...this film stands on it's own quite well. The guy next to me in the theater was a "newbie" to the MCU, dragged to the theater with his friends to be "part of the crowd" in this experience. Over the first 5 minutes he was asking his buddy a million questions about who is who and what is what...but after that he just settled into his chair and enjoyed the ride for what it is - even jumping up and cheering at a spot late in the film where EVERYONE in the sold out IMAX showing I was in was tempted to jump out of their chair and cheer (yes - there is THAT kind of moment in this film).
There is also sorrow...loss...joy...relief...tension...excitement...as I said..."all the feels". I don't usually tear up at movies, but I felt some glistening in the corners of my eyes and a lump in my throat on more than 1 occasion - sometimes with sadness, but, sometimes, with joy and exuberance. Yes! I had tears of JOY jumping out of my eyes at a few moments in this film.
But, if it is Special Effects spectacle you are looking for - no worries. There are PLENTY including a finale that is worthy of being the Final Battle in the Final Film for this Phase of the series.
And...the humor...this film has a surprisingly large amount of light, happy moments as well. I give the Russo Brothers - and the MCU - credit for realizing that humor is a good counterbalance to sorrow, action and suspense. I also give them credit for what character they decided to use as the "comic relief" in this film. It's a good choice - and the performer tapped to play the humor is equal to the task.
But, of course, none of this matters if the characters aren't interesting enough to root for - and this film has it in spades. We've watched these characters grow, develop, bond and tear apart over the course of these past 11 years, so there is quite a bit of emotional investment in the characters - and this investment pays of handsomely (again...if you are a "casual" fan or a "newbie", you'll be fine). But...if you are like me and are "into" the MCU then there is payoff after payoff in this film that is extremely satisfying.
The actors in ENDGAME are, of course, at the top of their game. They know they are capping a special moment in their careers and they "bring it". Starting, of course, with Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. His character goes through a wide variety of emotions through the course of this film and - if this is his last MCU film - he's going out in style. As is Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America. These two are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of the MCU - and they take center stage with aplomb, tweaking their characters while respecting all that came before. To be honest, I never really bought into the Iron Man vs. Captain America "Civil War" storyline, but they tie that up nicely.
Of course the other 4 "Original 6 Avengers" - Chris Hemsworth's THOR, Scarlett Johansson's BLACK WIDOW, Mark Ruffalo's BRUCE BANNER and Jeremy Renner's CLINT/HAWKEYE/RONIN - are on hand and they all have their moments and take their bows as appropriate throughout. I also have to give some "props" to Don Cheadle's James "Rhodey" Rhodes/WAR MACHINE - kind of an unsung performer in these films and is a welcome sight who would have been missed had he not been there.
The other "survivors of the snap" - Bradley Cooper's ROCKET RACOON, Karen Gillan's NEBULA and Paul Rudd's SCOTT LANG/ANT MAN - fit in with the "original" Avengers quite well. This group of 10 is fun to watch. Add to them Brie Larson's CAPTAIN MARVEL to mix the drink and the concoction was intoxicating to me. A small "quibble" and I do mean a "quibble" - Danai Gurira and her character OKOYE is underutlized/underused for my tastes, but...that is just a "quibble".
Oh...and James Brolin is back as "big bad" Thanos - a worthy adversary, both emotionally, intellectually and physically for this group of SuperHero's to outwit/outlast/outplay.
Finally...without giving away any plot points...this story figured out a way to reflect on/pay homage to previous films in this Universe. It was a clever way to bring back stories/characters/moments from the past and to give some of these performers and moments a nice "cameo" curtain call.
I better stop now before I give away plot points - needless to say I LOVED THIS FILM - it was a very satisfying way to say "thank you and goodbye" to 11 years (and 22 films) of marvelous film making.
I'm looking forward to what the next 11 years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to offer - the bar has been set at the highest level.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
AVENGERS: ENDGAME is an emotionally and artistically satisfying conclusion to 11 years and 22 films of the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE.
Closing out "Phase III" in the MCU, the concluding chapter for most of the "original" MCU characters/actors, ENDGAME picks up the Avengers story right after the conclusion of AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR - a film which saw our heroes lose the battle to Thanos, who snapped his fingers and half the living beings in the Universe vanished.
Instead of downplaying the grief that a survivor would feel, Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (veterans of many MCU films) wisely decide to "lean into" this grief which gives this film something that is surprising for a SuperHero film - emotional resonance. You grieve with these characters that you have come to know - and love - and share their pain and sorrow.
It's a wise choice for it adds a layer to this film that many Superhero films fail to achieve. Along with action, fun characters that you want to root for, interesting visuals and (are you listening DC?) - HUMOR, this film has "all the feels" (to steal a phrase) and will leave the MCU fan (both hardcore and casual) satisfied with the experience.
Also...interestingly enough...this film stands on it's own quite well. The guy next to me in the theater was a "newbie" to the MCU, dragged to the theater with his friends to be "part of the crowd" in this experience. Over the first 5 minutes he was asking his buddy a million questions about who is who and what is what...but after that he just settled into his chair and enjoyed the ride for what it is - even jumping up and cheering at a spot late in the film where EVERYONE in the sold out IMAX showing I was in was tempted to jump out of their chair and cheer (yes - there is THAT kind of moment in this film).
There is also sorrow...loss...joy...relief...tension...excitement...as I said..."all the feels". I don't usually tear up at movies, but I felt some glistening in the corners of my eyes and a lump in my throat on more than 1 occasion - sometimes with sadness, but, sometimes, with joy and exuberance. Yes! I had tears of JOY jumping out of my eyes at a few moments in this film.
But, if it is Special Effects spectacle you are looking for - no worries. There are PLENTY including a finale that is worthy of being the Final Battle in the Final Film for this Phase of the series.
And...the humor...this film has a surprisingly large amount of light, happy moments as well. I give the Russo Brothers - and the MCU - credit for realizing that humor is a good counterbalance to sorrow, action and suspense. I also give them credit for what character they decided to use as the "comic relief" in this film. It's a good choice - and the performer tapped to play the humor is equal to the task.
But, of course, none of this matters if the characters aren't interesting enough to root for - and this film has it in spades. We've watched these characters grow, develop, bond and tear apart over the course of these past 11 years, so there is quite a bit of emotional investment in the characters - and this investment pays of handsomely (again...if you are a "casual" fan or a "newbie", you'll be fine). But...if you are like me and are "into" the MCU then there is payoff after payoff in this film that is extremely satisfying.
The actors in ENDGAME are, of course, at the top of their game. They know they are capping a special moment in their careers and they "bring it". Starting, of course, with Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. His character goes through a wide variety of emotions through the course of this film and - if this is his last MCU film - he's going out in style. As is Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America. These two are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of the MCU - and they take center stage with aplomb, tweaking their characters while respecting all that came before. To be honest, I never really bought into the Iron Man vs. Captain America "Civil War" storyline, but they tie that up nicely.
Of course the other 4 "Original 6 Avengers" - Chris Hemsworth's THOR, Scarlett Johansson's BLACK WIDOW, Mark Ruffalo's BRUCE BANNER and Jeremy Renner's CLINT/HAWKEYE/RONIN - are on hand and they all have their moments and take their bows as appropriate throughout. I also have to give some "props" to Don Cheadle's James "Rhodey" Rhodes/WAR MACHINE - kind of an unsung performer in these films and is a welcome sight who would have been missed had he not been there.
The other "survivors of the snap" - Bradley Cooper's ROCKET RACOON, Karen Gillan's NEBULA and Paul Rudd's SCOTT LANG/ANT MAN - fit in with the "original" Avengers quite well. This group of 10 is fun to watch. Add to them Brie Larson's CAPTAIN MARVEL to mix the drink and the concoction was intoxicating to me. A small "quibble" and I do mean a "quibble" - Danai Gurira and her character OKOYE is underutlized/underused for my tastes, but...that is just a "quibble".
Oh...and James Brolin is back as "big bad" Thanos - a worthy adversary, both emotionally, intellectually and physically for this group of SuperHero's to outwit/outlast/outplay.
Finally...without giving away any plot points...this story figured out a way to reflect on/pay homage to previous films in this Universe. It was a clever way to bring back stories/characters/moments from the past and to give some of these performers and moments a nice "cameo" curtain call.
I better stop now before I give away plot points - needless to say I LOVED THIS FILM - it was a very satisfying way to say "thank you and goodbye" to 11 years (and 22 films) of marvelous film making.
I'm looking forward to what the next 11 years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to offer - the bar has been set at the highest level.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Welcome to Marwen (2018) in Movies
Jan 11, 2019
Steve Carell (1 more)
Leslie Mann
This year, I made a resolution to try not to let critic reviews heavily influence my decision to go see a movie or not. In the period between Christmas and New year, I'd booked to go see Holmes and Watson, but when the very bad reviews for it started coming it, I decided to cancel, opting to continue lazing on the sofa with food, drink and Netflix instead. That particular choice I don't regret, but I feel there have been many occasions over the last year where I've either hated a movie the critics loved, or loved a movie the critics were negative about. Time to try and change that.
I almost did miss out on seeing Welcome to Marwen though, due to the large number of mediocre reviews I read. In fact, it doesn't seem to have appealed to the general public enough to keep it in the cinemas for very long at all. Having only opened here in the UK on New year's Day, the screening I went to last night was actually the last screening being shown at that particular cinema, and I was one of only a handful of people there watching it. What prompted me earlier this week to give it a go though was after listening to director Robert Zemeckis talk passionately about it, along with his other movies. It was a gentle reminder that this guy is responsible for so many of my favourite movies, and I decided to give it a shot. While I'm glad I did, and overall I enjoyed it a lot, I can certainly appreciate where some of the criticism is coming from.
Welcome to Marwen is based on the true story of Mark Hogancamp, and the 2010 documentary on his life title 'Marwencol'. Mark (played in the movie by Steve Carell) suffered a severe beating at the hands of a bunch of thugs following an altercation in a bar regarding his lifestyle choice of being a cross dresser. After nine days in a coma, the beating understandably left him traumatised, but it also left him without any memory his life prior to the attack - once a talented war illustrator, he now can't even write his own name. But Mark remained an artist, building a miniature World War II Belgian town called Marwen outside his home and populating it with dolls. Using them he creates scenes and a story which he then photographs, helping him to express and deal with his lack of memory, the pain and trauma he now experiences, and the relationships with the people around him. Captain Hogie is a fighter pilot, an Action Man/GI Joe figure representing Mark. The residents of Marwen are all women, alter egos of various people who have helped him in the past or continue to help him. The toyshop worker who supplies him with the dolls, a friend he met during rehab, a co-worker, his carer and the woman who came to his aid following his beating. The town is also terrorised regularly by a bunch of Nazis, representing the men responsible for attacking him. And whenever the Nazis are beaten and killed, they are brought back to life by a Belgian witch! When a woman called Nicol (Leslie Mann) moves in across the street, she strikes up a wonderful friendship with Mark, earning her own doll in the town of Marwen where she strikes up a relationship with Captain Hogie. As the movie progresses, Mark has to deal with the pending sentencing of his attackers and the anxiety surrounding an upcoming exhibition showcasing his photographs. Marwen, and its inhabitants, help him to work through all of this.
The scenes and stories in Marwen that Mark is creating and imagining are brought to life in the movie using impressive motion capture CGI which, if you've seen the trailer or any clips of the movie, will know looks incredible. When you think about the animation Zemeckis and his team were producing for The Polar Express back in 2004, through Beowulf and Disney's The Christmas Carol to where we are now with this movie, it's simply amazing how far we've come. Perfect recreations of the movie characters in doll form, moving and interacting with the real surroundings and the CGI is just faultless. But for the earlier parts of the movie, this aspect of the movie for me was for a while the most frustrating and dull. The movie opens with a big scene as Captain Hogie crashes his plane, comes across a group of Nazis before being rescued by the girls of Marwen and we get a few more of these lengthy sequences early on, with only short glimpses of Mark and his life inbetween. I found myself become interested and engrossed in the life of Mark, wanting to learn more, only to be snapped out of it by a not so interesting scene involving some dolls. Thankfully, the length of those scenes reduces over time, and as you begin to empathise more with Mark and his life, you start to appreciate more the reasons why a certain scene is playing out the way it is. At that point, I began to really appreciate and enjoy them a lot more.
My only issue overall with this movie is that I wouldn't really know the age range to pitch it at, and that's possibly why it doesn't appear to have done so well with audiences. You've got the fun elements involving the dolls and the CGI, but then some of these scenes do involve a fair bit of violence which actually appears quite realistic at times. Then you've got the trauma and the flashbacks involving the beating - the movie doesn't go as dark as it could, or maybe should have done with that subject matter, but I certainly wouldn't say this is a fun movie for all the family to enjoy. Which is a shame really because I did enjoy this a lot. Steve Carell does an outstanding job, and Leslie Mann is just wonderful as always. It's opened my eyes to some of the consequences of brain injury and made me want to learn more about Mark Hogancamp, which parts of the movie are true and which parts were added for entertainment. I'll be sure to try and watch the documentary at some point.
I almost did miss out on seeing Welcome to Marwen though, due to the large number of mediocre reviews I read. In fact, it doesn't seem to have appealed to the general public enough to keep it in the cinemas for very long at all. Having only opened here in the UK on New year's Day, the screening I went to last night was actually the last screening being shown at that particular cinema, and I was one of only a handful of people there watching it. What prompted me earlier this week to give it a go though was after listening to director Robert Zemeckis talk passionately about it, along with his other movies. It was a gentle reminder that this guy is responsible for so many of my favourite movies, and I decided to give it a shot. While I'm glad I did, and overall I enjoyed it a lot, I can certainly appreciate where some of the criticism is coming from.
Welcome to Marwen is based on the true story of Mark Hogancamp, and the 2010 documentary on his life title 'Marwencol'. Mark (played in the movie by Steve Carell) suffered a severe beating at the hands of a bunch of thugs following an altercation in a bar regarding his lifestyle choice of being a cross dresser. After nine days in a coma, the beating understandably left him traumatised, but it also left him without any memory his life prior to the attack - once a talented war illustrator, he now can't even write his own name. But Mark remained an artist, building a miniature World War II Belgian town called Marwen outside his home and populating it with dolls. Using them he creates scenes and a story which he then photographs, helping him to express and deal with his lack of memory, the pain and trauma he now experiences, and the relationships with the people around him. Captain Hogie is a fighter pilot, an Action Man/GI Joe figure representing Mark. The residents of Marwen are all women, alter egos of various people who have helped him in the past or continue to help him. The toyshop worker who supplies him with the dolls, a friend he met during rehab, a co-worker, his carer and the woman who came to his aid following his beating. The town is also terrorised regularly by a bunch of Nazis, representing the men responsible for attacking him. And whenever the Nazis are beaten and killed, they are brought back to life by a Belgian witch! When a woman called Nicol (Leslie Mann) moves in across the street, she strikes up a wonderful friendship with Mark, earning her own doll in the town of Marwen where she strikes up a relationship with Captain Hogie. As the movie progresses, Mark has to deal with the pending sentencing of his attackers and the anxiety surrounding an upcoming exhibition showcasing his photographs. Marwen, and its inhabitants, help him to work through all of this.
The scenes and stories in Marwen that Mark is creating and imagining are brought to life in the movie using impressive motion capture CGI which, if you've seen the trailer or any clips of the movie, will know looks incredible. When you think about the animation Zemeckis and his team were producing for The Polar Express back in 2004, through Beowulf and Disney's The Christmas Carol to where we are now with this movie, it's simply amazing how far we've come. Perfect recreations of the movie characters in doll form, moving and interacting with the real surroundings and the CGI is just faultless. But for the earlier parts of the movie, this aspect of the movie for me was for a while the most frustrating and dull. The movie opens with a big scene as Captain Hogie crashes his plane, comes across a group of Nazis before being rescued by the girls of Marwen and we get a few more of these lengthy sequences early on, with only short glimpses of Mark and his life inbetween. I found myself become interested and engrossed in the life of Mark, wanting to learn more, only to be snapped out of it by a not so interesting scene involving some dolls. Thankfully, the length of those scenes reduces over time, and as you begin to empathise more with Mark and his life, you start to appreciate more the reasons why a certain scene is playing out the way it is. At that point, I began to really appreciate and enjoy them a lot more.
My only issue overall with this movie is that I wouldn't really know the age range to pitch it at, and that's possibly why it doesn't appear to have done so well with audiences. You've got the fun elements involving the dolls and the CGI, but then some of these scenes do involve a fair bit of violence which actually appears quite realistic at times. Then you've got the trauma and the flashbacks involving the beating - the movie doesn't go as dark as it could, or maybe should have done with that subject matter, but I certainly wouldn't say this is a fun movie for all the family to enjoy. Which is a shame really because I did enjoy this a lot. Steve Carell does an outstanding job, and Leslie Mann is just wonderful as always. It's opened my eyes to some of the consequences of brain injury and made me want to learn more about Mark Hogancamp, which parts of the movie are true and which parts were added for entertainment. I'll be sure to try and watch the documentary at some point.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?