Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Aug 9, 2021
Engaging love story (at least, the one in the 60's) (2 more)
Lush production values, especially production design and cinematography
Great cast - especially Shailene Woodley and Ben Cross
A proper old-fashioned love story that older viewers will appreciate.
Is "chick flick" a phrase that you can use these days? I guess not, since it infers that a movie is only of interest to a particular gender. Perhaps "Sunday afternoon film" is a better phrase. And "The Last Letter From Your Lover" is a real SAF.
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Samantha Darko, or Sam as she goes by, just wants to feel like a normal person. Back where she's from, Virginia, she feels like everyone knows everything about her yet that she's invisible at the same time. She'd change places with somebody if she could. Somehow start all over. Nothing has been the same for her since her brother, Donnie, died seven years ago and she is consumed with the same outlandish visions Donnie had. She decides to go on a road trip with her friend, Corey, to California in hopes of working for Corey's dad. Their car breaks down along the way and they wind up in a small town called Conejo Springs. This is where the world will end in four days, seventeen hours, twenty six minutes, and thirty one seconds.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
The Times of London: World News, Sports & Election
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Enjoy The Times of London quality journalism anywhere with one app, 7 days a week. Download the app...
European iAIP
Navigation and Education
App
eiAIP allows users to: •Browse AIP information and SUP of the respective State •Get TAF,METAR,...
The Times & The Sunday Times: World News & Sports
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Enjoy quality journalism from The Times and The Sunday Times anywhere with one app, seven days a...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lost Angel in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book had almost too much going on, with an extensive glossary in the beginning pages - complete with color photos - that I needed to read beforehand to keep up with the plot. Javier Sierra made a point of mixing fact with fiction in this novel, and the book reads like an extensive 'conspiracy theory.' My husband is much more familiar with many aspects of the plot, and I often asked him if what I was reading about was really true or not. The book opens with a quotation of Genesis 6: 2-3, which states "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'" This is followed by a quote from John Dee, who figures prominently in the plot, though I did not find the quote to be especially inspiring.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The First Purge (2018) in Movies
Jul 9, 2018
Not sure why they bothered
The fourth movie in 'The Purge' series takes us right back to the beginning, introducing us to the days leading up to and including the very first purge. It's the weakest of the series, and while not exactly a bad movie, you're kind of left wondering why they even bothered.
The site of the new 'experiment' is Staten Island, NY, and in the run up to it's commencement we're introduced to quite a few of the locals, most of which aren't that memorable once the end credits have rolled. Some of them are angry, and looking to embrace this new way of being able to legally release their anger. Some are out to protect their illegal business interests, and some just want to keep their heads down and ride out the night with as little trouble as possible. In an effort to keep people on the island during the experiment, the NFFA offers $5,000 to anyone who does stick around for the night. And, if they actually participate in the purge, they'll get a nice bonus! Glowing contact lenses containing tiny cameras are on offer to those that do wish to partake, allowing their movements and actions to be tracked and seen by all, and providing a suitably creepy effect when worn out in the dark.
Unfortunately though, purge night doesn't get off to a great start. While most streets are clear, a number of block parties start up, and the only murder that takes place has been by the local crazy guy on drugs. So, they decide to stir things up a bit by sending in trained teams, disguised as locals, in an attempt to incite violence. When this happens, and innocent lives are lost, local drug boss Dmitri and his team of dealers decide to take things into their own hands. With their arsenal of automatic weapons, they seem surprisingly well trained in the art of taking out the mercenaries, and this is where the movie is at it's most enjoyable. As Dmitri strips down to his white vest and heads into the tower block where a number of bad guys are sweeping each floor, taking out innocents as they go, we get some fantastic action sequences. It's all very reminiscent of The Raid, with a dash of Die Hard thrown in. Close quarters stairwell fighting, gun fights, explosions, all beautifully choreographed and ramping up the tension as the bad guys near the 14th floor, where many of the characters introduced earlier in the movie are all holed up.
Sadly, this intense and thrilling action only features in the last 20 minutes or so and isn't enough to pull this back from being just a so-so movie, only adding to the overall imbalance of it all.
The site of the new 'experiment' is Staten Island, NY, and in the run up to it's commencement we're introduced to quite a few of the locals, most of which aren't that memorable once the end credits have rolled. Some of them are angry, and looking to embrace this new way of being able to legally release their anger. Some are out to protect their illegal business interests, and some just want to keep their heads down and ride out the night with as little trouble as possible. In an effort to keep people on the island during the experiment, the NFFA offers $5,000 to anyone who does stick around for the night. And, if they actually participate in the purge, they'll get a nice bonus! Glowing contact lenses containing tiny cameras are on offer to those that do wish to partake, allowing their movements and actions to be tracked and seen by all, and providing a suitably creepy effect when worn out in the dark.
Unfortunately though, purge night doesn't get off to a great start. While most streets are clear, a number of block parties start up, and the only murder that takes place has been by the local crazy guy on drugs. So, they decide to stir things up a bit by sending in trained teams, disguised as locals, in an attempt to incite violence. When this happens, and innocent lives are lost, local drug boss Dmitri and his team of dealers decide to take things into their own hands. With their arsenal of automatic weapons, they seem surprisingly well trained in the art of taking out the mercenaries, and this is where the movie is at it's most enjoyable. As Dmitri strips down to his white vest and heads into the tower block where a number of bad guys are sweeping each floor, taking out innocents as they go, we get some fantastic action sequences. It's all very reminiscent of The Raid, with a dash of Die Hard thrown in. Close quarters stairwell fighting, gun fights, explosions, all beautifully choreographed and ramping up the tension as the bad guys near the 14th floor, where many of the characters introduced earlier in the movie are all holed up.
Sadly, this intense and thrilling action only features in the last 20 minutes or so and isn't enough to pull this back from being just a so-so movie, only adding to the overall imbalance of it all.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Liberator (The Liberators #1) in Books
Nov 19, 2019
Fast. Loud. Violent. Fun. All good adjectives to use in relation to this book. This is the summer blockbuster of science fiction novels.
It is the far future. Corporate business rules and takeovers and mergers are often done facing down the barrel of a gun - or the threat of destruction from orbit from a massive spaceship.
When Skye Pennington is kidnapped by a rival company in order to gain business advantage, her friend Orlanda Nixon tries to rescue her. After her initial attempt is thwarted, she turns to the only place she can, the old mercenary unit she and Skye were both part of. The Liberators.
However, the former large and fearsome force is now a tattered remnant after one battle too far, kept alive only by their leader, JJ Tristan and a few final loyal members who have nowhere else to go. Tristan must gather as much of the team as he can muster at short notice and get his mighty - and badly damaged - ship back in action. It's a tall order for a disparate group who don't always get on with each other.
In the end the plot is not of any particular consequence. It is a very handy hook to hang the story off of, the initial stirring battles introducing Orlanda and Skye, the introduction and gathering of the Liberators after Orlanda's plea and the adrenaline fuelled fight sequences as they attempt to recapture Skye. There is also some sneaking around by the team's deadly assassin and flashbacks to show the glory days of the team, and some of the history between the characters.
The result is a terrific ensemble piece, the Liberators may be battered and dog-eared, old and tired but they have an instinct for survival and fighting that is only matched by their ability to cause destruction and mayhem. The pace runs fast through most of the book - it does slow in the middle as the characters are introduced but is never dull and certainly never predictable.
Every character is well thought out and at first glance some appear to be simplistic ciphers - the cyborg, the tech specialist with the weird sense of humour, the grizzled commander - but once they start interacting and (most importantly) fighting each comes entirely into their own.
This book doesn't take itself too seriously - it exists for the excellent set pieces rather than for any detailed introspection on future society - and the scenes of the good guys running around in big armour with even bigger guns will bring a smile to your face. In particular the sequence when their ship takes off is a total tour de force and one of the best action scenes I have seen in print.
This is a terrific introduction to what will hopefully be a series of novels. Certainly what happens next to the Liberators will be of interest. Any Hollywood producers looking for the next great summer blockbuster could do worse as well.
Rating: Lots of violence. Then some more. And some bad language
It is the far future. Corporate business rules and takeovers and mergers are often done facing down the barrel of a gun - or the threat of destruction from orbit from a massive spaceship.
When Skye Pennington is kidnapped by a rival company in order to gain business advantage, her friend Orlanda Nixon tries to rescue her. After her initial attempt is thwarted, she turns to the only place she can, the old mercenary unit she and Skye were both part of. The Liberators.
However, the former large and fearsome force is now a tattered remnant after one battle too far, kept alive only by their leader, JJ Tristan and a few final loyal members who have nowhere else to go. Tristan must gather as much of the team as he can muster at short notice and get his mighty - and badly damaged - ship back in action. It's a tall order for a disparate group who don't always get on with each other.
In the end the plot is not of any particular consequence. It is a very handy hook to hang the story off of, the initial stirring battles introducing Orlanda and Skye, the introduction and gathering of the Liberators after Orlanda's plea and the adrenaline fuelled fight sequences as they attempt to recapture Skye. There is also some sneaking around by the team's deadly assassin and flashbacks to show the glory days of the team, and some of the history between the characters.
The result is a terrific ensemble piece, the Liberators may be battered and dog-eared, old and tired but they have an instinct for survival and fighting that is only matched by their ability to cause destruction and mayhem. The pace runs fast through most of the book - it does slow in the middle as the characters are introduced but is never dull and certainly never predictable.
Every character is well thought out and at first glance some appear to be simplistic ciphers - the cyborg, the tech specialist with the weird sense of humour, the grizzled commander - but once they start interacting and (most importantly) fighting each comes entirely into their own.
This book doesn't take itself too seriously - it exists for the excellent set pieces rather than for any detailed introspection on future society - and the scenes of the good guys running around in big armour with even bigger guns will bring a smile to your face. In particular the sequence when their ship takes off is a total tour de force and one of the best action scenes I have seen in print.
This is a terrific introduction to what will hopefully be a series of novels. Certainly what happens next to the Liberators will be of interest. Any Hollywood producers looking for the next great summer blockbuster could do worse as well.
Rating: Lots of violence. Then some more. And some bad language
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.