Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blair Witch (2016) in Movies
Aug 14, 2017
Yeah, I preferred this to the original...
The original Blair Witch movie came out in 1999 (wow, where has the time gone?!) in the good old days when you could get hold of a US DVD import in the UK before a movie was even released on UK cinema screens. I remember The Blair Witch Project being released in the UK on Halloween, the same day that the US DVD was delivered to my house! I excitedly sat down to watch it that evening with my family while everyone else had to go out in the cold rainy weather to watch it at the cinema, and I remember at the end of the movie we all kind of looked at each other as if to say “is that it…?!” All the hype, all the usual crap about it being absolutely terrifying and the scariest movie ever made and it was just a bunch of people getting spooked in the woods! To be fair, it wasn’t that bad, but it just wasn’t as scary or as fantastic as we’d been led to believe. The movie spawned a forgettable sequel and since then, despite being done to death, far superior found footage movies have come along and done it all a hell of a lot better. Then, out of the blue in July last year, a movie which had been previously marketed as ‘The Woods’ was revealed to actually be ‘Blair Witch’. The trailer looked OK, not great but interesting enough. But, once again we’re being subjected to all the usual marketing crap about it being terrifying and the scariest thing you’ve ever seen… blah, blah, blah…
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
Louise (64 KP) rated Wolf by Wolf (Wolf by Wolf, #1) in Books
Jul 2, 2018
Yael is 5 years old and finds herself a prisoner in a Nazi Concentration camp, she has been specifically selected by a doctor for an experiment. The experiment entails a series of injections every few days - their aim.... to make her blonde haired and blue-eyed (an Aryan). These injections are severe and the weak show signs of fever and for most of them death but not for Yael.
1956 Yael is a member of the resistance, her aim in life is to kill Hitler to make the world a better place. With so many assassination attempts Hitler hardly attends social functions, so it's quite difficult to get near him. The resistance have a plan which involves Yael - she must enter the Axis Motorbike race disguised as another young girl who has once had the pleasure of meeting the Führer - if Yael can win, her life's mission will be complete, However she didn't plan for all the backstabbing and love involved in the race or the hidden secrets which are not on file. For this no training would help her, she has to win.
This is one of those books that explores the topic of Hitler winning the war and how the rest of the world would be effected and what other bizarre theories he comes up with. This also covers another serious topic that I myself did not know about was that people were experimented on in the concentration camps which caused death and disfigurements. Which is absolutely brutal and very hard to read about.
I was umming and ahhing over this book for a while,I heard many great things about it but I still wasn't totally convinced. Was it the fact that this book is based on Hitler winning and carrying on with his reign of terror or was it the motorcycle race? I have never read anything about racing before and it doesn't really appeal to me.However my lesson has been learnt...... I think! Always try to read something out of your comfort zone because you never know you might just end up loving it, which is exactly what happened to me with this book.
I loved this book with a passion, I loved the back stories to the wolves and how they become. The authors writing style was beautiful to read, utterly compelling but also hard due to the content and how realistic it was. This is a book that explores identity and reasons that drive Yael on through her mission. The book does go back and forth from the past and present, which I really enjoyed, I think if the book wasn't written this way it could have dragged a bit. The premise of this book is definitely unique and like nothing I have read before. Ryan Graudin has a novella which is called Iron to Iron which I desperately need to read as I just want more.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in historical fiction and young adult.
Overall I rated this book 5 out of 5 stars
1956 Yael is a member of the resistance, her aim in life is to kill Hitler to make the world a better place. With so many assassination attempts Hitler hardly attends social functions, so it's quite difficult to get near him. The resistance have a plan which involves Yael - she must enter the Axis Motorbike race disguised as another young girl who has once had the pleasure of meeting the Führer - if Yael can win, her life's mission will be complete, However she didn't plan for all the backstabbing and love involved in the race or the hidden secrets which are not on file. For this no training would help her, she has to win.
This is one of those books that explores the topic of Hitler winning the war and how the rest of the world would be effected and what other bizarre theories he comes up with. This also covers another serious topic that I myself did not know about was that people were experimented on in the concentration camps which caused death and disfigurements. Which is absolutely brutal and very hard to read about.
I was umming and ahhing over this book for a while,I heard many great things about it but I still wasn't totally convinced. Was it the fact that this book is based on Hitler winning and carrying on with his reign of terror or was it the motorcycle race? I have never read anything about racing before and it doesn't really appeal to me.However my lesson has been learnt...... I think! Always try to read something out of your comfort zone because you never know you might just end up loving it, which is exactly what happened to me with this book.
I loved this book with a passion, I loved the back stories to the wolves and how they become. The authors writing style was beautiful to read, utterly compelling but also hard due to the content and how realistic it was. This is a book that explores identity and reasons that drive Yael on through her mission. The book does go back and forth from the past and present, which I really enjoyed, I think if the book wasn't written this way it could have dragged a bit. The premise of this book is definitely unique and like nothing I have read before. Ryan Graudin has a novella which is called Iron to Iron which I desperately need to read as I just want more.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in historical fiction and young adult.
Overall I rated this book 5 out of 5 stars
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Targets (1968) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Targeting Frankenstein: A Horror Icon
Targets- is a very suspenseful film that stars a old boris Karloff. His performance in this film is different. Usually he is type-cast in a horror movie. Targets is not the cast, its a more serious role for Karloff and I liked it alot. He is dramatic in Targets. It was Karloff's last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
Bill & Hillary : So This Is That Thing Called Love
Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince
Book
On the campus of Yale University, in 1970, an "odd couple," Hillary Rodham and Bill ("Bubba")...
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Fractured Dream (The Dreamer Saga, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
In all honesty, Fractured Dream felt as though I was dragging a big sack of potatoes around and trying to find a place to put them... yet finding nowhere. And it's just bad when I take a chunk out of veggie chips during 2-3 hours of complete peace and quiet when I should have taken more chunk out of the book. Apparently, the veggie chips were more interesting, because I normally have no problems reading a 400-500+ paged book.
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Nightingale (2018) in Movies
Dec 11, 2019
Brutal and beautiful
In 1825 Tasmania, a young wife and mother experiences brutal atrocity against her family by the British soldiers in her midst. With her entire world shattered, the battered and broken young woman embarks on a quest for revenge. Not thinking clearly through her grief, she decides to escapade through the harsh and unforgiving countryside with only a native guide to show her the way and maybe catch those who have violated her world. Haunted by the images of her recent past, Clare is tortured by what she remembers, but needs to persevere for her wits to remain intact.
The path is ripe with treachery. The jungle can be beautiful and harsh simultaneously. Her guide is reluctant to lead the way and has to be bribed to do so. Clare, the young woman, has to deceive her real motives and says she has to meet her husband who as gone on ahead a few days journey. The duo have several unforgiving encounters while tracking the soldiers. The soldiers themselves continually perpetrate barbarism on those they encounter as their own guide takes them on an equally perilous journey through the unforgiving countryside.
Clare's quest for revenge and redemption could end up costing her her own life and soul in the process.
Writer/director Jennifer Kent is now one I will start having to keep my eye on for her future theatrical endeavors. First she spooked us all in the cleverly inventive, The Babadook, and now shows us a glimpse as to the brutal world of 1825 in unrelenting realism. The Australian county is go gorgeous during the day, but during the night presents many ghouls and strange sounds.
The intrigue the film presents is not the brutality itself, but Clare's reaction to it and thus her sense of retribution. She presents strength and weakness sometimes at the same moment, but you feel for her, her tough life and her struggle to meander through it. She wanders from soul to soul trying to get help, but finds few who are willing to help her.
The leading role for actress Aisling Franciosi was astonishing. Her portrayal of Clare was honest, heartbreaking and inspiring during different parts of the film. She wasn't just a victim of violence then a heartless killer, she shows depth and compassion as well.
Some of the images the film shows the audience will be hard to forget any time soon, but I am so glad I found this film. Highly recommended.
The path is ripe with treachery. The jungle can be beautiful and harsh simultaneously. Her guide is reluctant to lead the way and has to be bribed to do so. Clare, the young woman, has to deceive her real motives and says she has to meet her husband who as gone on ahead a few days journey. The duo have several unforgiving encounters while tracking the soldiers. The soldiers themselves continually perpetrate barbarism on those they encounter as their own guide takes them on an equally perilous journey through the unforgiving countryside.
Clare's quest for revenge and redemption could end up costing her her own life and soul in the process.
Writer/director Jennifer Kent is now one I will start having to keep my eye on for her future theatrical endeavors. First she spooked us all in the cleverly inventive, The Babadook, and now shows us a glimpse as to the brutal world of 1825 in unrelenting realism. The Australian county is go gorgeous during the day, but during the night presents many ghouls and strange sounds.
The intrigue the film presents is not the brutality itself, but Clare's reaction to it and thus her sense of retribution. She presents strength and weakness sometimes at the same moment, but you feel for her, her tough life and her struggle to meander through it. She wanders from soul to soul trying to get help, but finds few who are willing to help her.
The leading role for actress Aisling Franciosi was astonishing. Her portrayal of Clare was honest, heartbreaking and inspiring during different parts of the film. She wasn't just a victim of violence then a heartless killer, she shows depth and compassion as well.
Some of the images the film shows the audience will be hard to forget any time soon, but I am so glad I found this film. Highly recommended.
12minutos - Resumos de Livros
Education and Book
App
How would your life be if you could read one book per day? At 12', we extract the greatest ideas...
Staccal 2 - Calendars and Reminder
Productivity and Lifestyle
App
Staccal brings you calendar functionality that is easy to use, quick, and flexible to your...