Search
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020
Original and Quirky...enough
KNIVES OUT was one of the films I had circled on my calendar as a "must see". It seemed to be a perfect antidote to the CGI-Fest films that are very prevalent in the multi-plex today. So...when life got in the way and I couldn't get to this film for about a month, I tried (and succeeded) in not getting this movie spoiled for me in my various Social Media feeds.
And I'm glad I went to such lengths, for I found KNIVES OUT to be a truly original and entertaining film that kept me guessing throughout the length of the film - right up to the "big reveal."
So...if you haven't seen this film...stop reading this now...go see it...and come back.
Still here (or are you back)? Okay...let's continue...
Directed by Rian Johnson (known by many as the Director of THE LAST JEDI, but I think this movie owes more of it's heritage to his breakthrough film BRICK or his Sci-Fi action flick, LOOPER), KNIVES OUT is an old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-type murder mystery complete with an oddball Detective trying to figure out "whodunnit" that features an All-Star cast of suspects as well as an Oscar winning murder victim.
As I stated above, Johnson has traversed a murder mystery-type film before in his neo-noir homage BRICK, but in this film he really let's his wings fly as he plays, marvelously, with the drawing room murder mystery pastiche. Johnson wrote and directed this film and the twists and turns and originality of his vision is apparent on screen, playing with expectations without being too clever.
He has assembled an All-Star cast of actors playing interesting characters. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Chris Evans, Toni Colette, Don Johnson and Jacob Trombley all bring star power and charisma to their roles and each one COULD have been the murderer. As often happens in these types of films, each one gets A scene to shine, but only the one "whodunnit" really gets to step out.
As the Law Enforcement on their trail, Lakeith Stanfield (GET OUT) and Noah Segan (LOOPER) play off each other well and they play off of Daniel Craig (James Bond, of course) very well. Craig plays Private Detective Benoit Blanc with some sort of Cajun-type accent that works more than it doesn't, I enjoyed his performance enough to find it charming and not annoying.
Special notice needs to be made of the performances of Christopher Plummer - as the murder victim (I'm not spoiling anything here, it's in the trailer) and Frank Oz (the famous Muppeteer and Director). Both are "old pros" who bring a grounding to the proceedings. Their performances are almost down to earth commentaries on the other characters/performances and they both helped out this film tremendously.
Finally, the film revolves around the journey that Ana de Armas' character, Maria Cabrera, is on in this film. She is the audience's eyes and ears into this story, having clues and plot points revealed to her as we, the audience, have them revealed to us. I fell in love with de Armas when she played Joi in BLADE RUNNER: 2049 and she is pleasant enough company here to search out this mystery with.
With all these pieces - and characters - to put together and move around, I did find that this film suffered a bit by "too much" and "too fast" at times that caused me not to care about certain people and circumstances (especially at the beginning), but that was quickly forgotten/forgiven as the film progressed and I was engrossed in the mystery - a mystery that I did not know how it was going to end.
And that, is unique and rare enough for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I'm glad I went to such lengths, for I found KNIVES OUT to be a truly original and entertaining film that kept me guessing throughout the length of the film - right up to the "big reveal."
So...if you haven't seen this film...stop reading this now...go see it...and come back.
Still here (or are you back)? Okay...let's continue...
Directed by Rian Johnson (known by many as the Director of THE LAST JEDI, but I think this movie owes more of it's heritage to his breakthrough film BRICK or his Sci-Fi action flick, LOOPER), KNIVES OUT is an old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-type murder mystery complete with an oddball Detective trying to figure out "whodunnit" that features an All-Star cast of suspects as well as an Oscar winning murder victim.
As I stated above, Johnson has traversed a murder mystery-type film before in his neo-noir homage BRICK, but in this film he really let's his wings fly as he plays, marvelously, with the drawing room murder mystery pastiche. Johnson wrote and directed this film and the twists and turns and originality of his vision is apparent on screen, playing with expectations without being too clever.
He has assembled an All-Star cast of actors playing interesting characters. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Chris Evans, Toni Colette, Don Johnson and Jacob Trombley all bring star power and charisma to their roles and each one COULD have been the murderer. As often happens in these types of films, each one gets A scene to shine, but only the one "whodunnit" really gets to step out.
As the Law Enforcement on their trail, Lakeith Stanfield (GET OUT) and Noah Segan (LOOPER) play off each other well and they play off of Daniel Craig (James Bond, of course) very well. Craig plays Private Detective Benoit Blanc with some sort of Cajun-type accent that works more than it doesn't, I enjoyed his performance enough to find it charming and not annoying.
Special notice needs to be made of the performances of Christopher Plummer - as the murder victim (I'm not spoiling anything here, it's in the trailer) and Frank Oz (the famous Muppeteer and Director). Both are "old pros" who bring a grounding to the proceedings. Their performances are almost down to earth commentaries on the other characters/performances and they both helped out this film tremendously.
Finally, the film revolves around the journey that Ana de Armas' character, Maria Cabrera, is on in this film. She is the audience's eyes and ears into this story, having clues and plot points revealed to her as we, the audience, have them revealed to us. I fell in love with de Armas when she played Joi in BLADE RUNNER: 2049 and she is pleasant enough company here to search out this mystery with.
With all these pieces - and characters - to put together and move around, I did find that this film suffered a bit by "too much" and "too fast" at times that caused me not to care about certain people and circumstances (especially at the beginning), but that was quickly forgotten/forgiven as the film progressed and I was engrossed in the mystery - a mystery that I did not know how it was going to end.
And that, is unique and rare enough for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Green Room (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
After a fruitless tour, a punk group, The Ain’t Rights, find themselves out of money and stealing gas to get back home. When a recommendation from a fan looking for an interview leads them to play one more show out in the backwoods of Oregon to a crowd of white supremacists, they become witnesses to a murder and barricade themselves in the green room. With no clear escape, they enter into a deadly battle of wills with the owner of the club, and his band of skinheads, and quickly discover that they have no intention of letting them leave alive.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Burning Dead (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
So, If you’re on the east coast you’re no doubt experiencing the unusually harsh ‘arctic waves’. If you’re on the west coast you have to deal with the unseasonably warm weather.
Whether it’s trying to stay warm and keep the fires burning or finding the shade and a cool beverage, either you or someone you know is going to bring up the following idea ‘ … B-Movie Horror Marathon’.
Today we’ve got a prime candidate for just such a marathon. ‘The Burning Dead’ staring the legendary Danny Trejo! Now, When I describe a B-movie of the horror genre, I’m not talking about legendary franchises like ‘Friday The 13th’ or ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’. No no no no no. I’m talking about a movie worthy of getting critiqued by the original crew of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. Something like an episode of the ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ T.V. show minus the awesome cast, a smaller budget, questionable computer-generated special effects, and no Joss Whedon at the helm. This movie isn’t without merit though. I mean c’mon. It’s got Danny Trejo in it so it definitely deserves a shot right?!
‘The Burning Dead’ stars Danny Trejo, Thomas Downey, Adam Gregor, Nicole Cummins, Moniqua Plante, Julia Lehman, Robert F. Lyons, Kyle T. Heffner, Kevin Norman, and Jenny Lin.
Our story opens with the Native American warrior Night Wolf (Trejo) and several members
of his family gathered around the campfire as he begins to share the tale the infamous ‘Donner Party’ and the madness that engulfed the early settlers was caused by an evil spirit that resided in the nearby mountain after defeating a ‘good spirit’ many years early. Fast forward to present day, Sheriff Denton is supervising the evacuation of a town in the shadow of the mountain after it begins to show signs of an impending eruption. Little do he and the townspeople know that
there will not only be a volcanic eruption, but the evil spirit residing within will unleash a horde of flesh-eating zombies that spit hot lava and ravage everything in their path!
Yeah yeah. I little too dramatic I know. I gotta give it some credit though. The actors and actresses do give a great performance under the circumstances attempting to be as serious as possible and the ‘lava zombie’ effects are quite well done considering. When the zombies ‘go to work’ there’s a definite ick factor too. Certainly not ‘Walking Dead’ gross but they get the point across. The soundtrack is almost annoying though as its the same track or variations of on a loop over and over again. I think from time to time, the writers may have consulted the ‘scary movie’ handbook because at one point, they do throw in hot chic who randomly shows up at the mountain during the evacuation, sets up a camera in front of the volcano and proceeds to strip while the camera is photographing the mountain in auto. We all know what happens to the ‘hot chic’ in a scary flick that strips down to her underwear or more yes? Predictable but mildly entertaining.
Honestly, I was expecting and hoping to see Trejo show up a lot more in the movie and kick some bad guy ass or in this case, some zombie ass. I think how I described it earlier is the best way to sum it up, ‘ It’s like a really bad episode of ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer ‘ minus the cast and character line up and no Joss Whedon at the helm. I’m giving it 2 out of 5 stars. This one just barely scrapes by. Definitely NOT one for the kids. Don’t waste your money on seeing it in theaters. Take my advice, and add it to the lineup for a B-Movie Horror marathon at home.
Sorry Danny … You just barely saved this one.
Whether it’s trying to stay warm and keep the fires burning or finding the shade and a cool beverage, either you or someone you know is going to bring up the following idea ‘ … B-Movie Horror Marathon’.
Today we’ve got a prime candidate for just such a marathon. ‘The Burning Dead’ staring the legendary Danny Trejo! Now, When I describe a B-movie of the horror genre, I’m not talking about legendary franchises like ‘Friday The 13th’ or ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’. No no no no no. I’m talking about a movie worthy of getting critiqued by the original crew of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. Something like an episode of the ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ T.V. show minus the awesome cast, a smaller budget, questionable computer-generated special effects, and no Joss Whedon at the helm. This movie isn’t without merit though. I mean c’mon. It’s got Danny Trejo in it so it definitely deserves a shot right?!
‘The Burning Dead’ stars Danny Trejo, Thomas Downey, Adam Gregor, Nicole Cummins, Moniqua Plante, Julia Lehman, Robert F. Lyons, Kyle T. Heffner, Kevin Norman, and Jenny Lin.
Our story opens with the Native American warrior Night Wolf (Trejo) and several members
of his family gathered around the campfire as he begins to share the tale the infamous ‘Donner Party’ and the madness that engulfed the early settlers was caused by an evil spirit that resided in the nearby mountain after defeating a ‘good spirit’ many years early. Fast forward to present day, Sheriff Denton is supervising the evacuation of a town in the shadow of the mountain after it begins to show signs of an impending eruption. Little do he and the townspeople know that
there will not only be a volcanic eruption, but the evil spirit residing within will unleash a horde of flesh-eating zombies that spit hot lava and ravage everything in their path!
Yeah yeah. I little too dramatic I know. I gotta give it some credit though. The actors and actresses do give a great performance under the circumstances attempting to be as serious as possible and the ‘lava zombie’ effects are quite well done considering. When the zombies ‘go to work’ there’s a definite ick factor too. Certainly not ‘Walking Dead’ gross but they get the point across. The soundtrack is almost annoying though as its the same track or variations of on a loop over and over again. I think from time to time, the writers may have consulted the ‘scary movie’ handbook because at one point, they do throw in hot chic who randomly shows up at the mountain during the evacuation, sets up a camera in front of the volcano and proceeds to strip while the camera is photographing the mountain in auto. We all know what happens to the ‘hot chic’ in a scary flick that strips down to her underwear or more yes? Predictable but mildly entertaining.
Honestly, I was expecting and hoping to see Trejo show up a lot more in the movie and kick some bad guy ass or in this case, some zombie ass. I think how I described it earlier is the best way to sum it up, ‘ It’s like a really bad episode of ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer ‘ minus the cast and character line up and no Joss Whedon at the helm. I’m giving it 2 out of 5 stars. This one just barely scrapes by. Definitely NOT one for the kids. Don’t waste your money on seeing it in theaters. Take my advice, and add it to the lineup for a B-Movie Horror marathon at home.
Sorry Danny … You just barely saved this one.
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.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Elisabeth Moss - excellent performance (1 more)
Slowly creeping tension - clever camera work
Have you seen "The Invisible Man"?
Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is trapped in a highly controlling and violent relationship with technology mogul Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). Escaping from his fortress-like home, she lives in fear of his retribution. So she is much relieved, if a little surprised, at the report of his suicide. Now living with old friend James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid), Cecilia can finally start to relax. But as strange things start to happen, is the ghost of Griffin back to haunt her? Or is it really all in her rapidly disintegrating mind, as her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) and James suspect?
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
iBal Rotary
Productivity and Navigation
App
iBal Rotary is a dedicated Helicopter weight and balance app for iPhone, iPad and iPod. Designed...
HippoRemote Pro ~ Wireless Keyboard, Mouse, Remote Control & Gamepad
Productivity and Utilities
App
WHAT IS HIPPOREMOTE? Control your computer with a wave of your hand or a flick of your finger!...