Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 5, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fair warning - I'm going to be briefly discussing some major spoilers down below...
Straight up, Eternals is extremely close to being a perfect movie (in my opinion of course, I understand that it's proving to be divisive).
For starters, the narrative is wonderfully crafted. As expected, it jumps all over different time periods, from anywhere between 5000 BC to present day, and manages to not feel jarring. It's pacing is a little slow within the first half an hour or so, but it's forgivable considering the whole host of new faces being introduced. It's impressive then, that each character gets a decent amount of development, you know exactly what everyone is about in a pretty swift manor. The bonds that these characters share make for some genuinely emotional moments throughout a film that frequently feels like an odyssey.
The cast is solid as hell. Gemma Chan is the closest to a lead character, and she's great as always. LAST SPOILER WARNING Richard Madden manages to be a suitable leader, and then ruthless, convincing, and cold when he takes a more villanous turn. Gave me some semi Homelander vibes. It's wonderful to see the likes of Ma Dong-Seok and Lauren Ridloff make the jump into blockbuster territory. Barry Keoghan continues to be generally awesome in everything he's in. Brian Tyree Henry, Lia McHugh, and Kumail Nanjiani are all great as well, and the heavy hitters, Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek, are left shy of the spotlight but still feel important. I was surprised to see Bill Skarsgård's name during the credits and can't help but feel he was a little wasted as CGI villain Kro. I would have liked to have seen more of Kit Harrington but I understand that he essentially a big tease for future projects (forever keeping my fingers crossed for a Midnight Sons movie...)
It's important to celebrate how visually breathtaking Eternals is from start to finish. There are of course some familiar Marvel aesthetics here and there, but Chloé Zhao has really laid down her own stamp. Even the fight scenes look unique, the Eternals powers always looking elegant. The climactic showdown is a particular highlight. This is all complimented by what is arguably the best music score in the MCU yet, with Game of Thrones veteran Ramin Djawadi coming through with something truly special.
In terms of wider MCU connection, Eternals very much feels like it's own thing, which works well with its unique feel. I am excited however to see some of these characters interact with other properties in the future. The proper introduction of Celestials is an exciting prospect, and that one shot near the end (you know the one), shows that technology is ready for the likes of Galactus to show up in the near future.
Eternals is yet another bold step for the MCU in a new phase. A movie with a hell of an ambitious scope that manages to stick the landing. I entered the cinema with slight trepidation due to it's early critical reception, and I left thinking that it's one of the best MCU entries so far, and I continue to be hyped for the future of the franchise.
Straight up, Eternals is extremely close to being a perfect movie (in my opinion of course, I understand that it's proving to be divisive).
For starters, the narrative is wonderfully crafted. As expected, it jumps all over different time periods, from anywhere between 5000 BC to present day, and manages to not feel jarring. It's pacing is a little slow within the first half an hour or so, but it's forgivable considering the whole host of new faces being introduced. It's impressive then, that each character gets a decent amount of development, you know exactly what everyone is about in a pretty swift manor. The bonds that these characters share make for some genuinely emotional moments throughout a film that frequently feels like an odyssey.
The cast is solid as hell. Gemma Chan is the closest to a lead character, and she's great as always. LAST SPOILER WARNING Richard Madden manages to be a suitable leader, and then ruthless, convincing, and cold when he takes a more villanous turn. Gave me some semi Homelander vibes. It's wonderful to see the likes of Ma Dong-Seok and Lauren Ridloff make the jump into blockbuster territory. Barry Keoghan continues to be generally awesome in everything he's in. Brian Tyree Henry, Lia McHugh, and Kumail Nanjiani are all great as well, and the heavy hitters, Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek, are left shy of the spotlight but still feel important. I was surprised to see Bill Skarsgård's name during the credits and can't help but feel he was a little wasted as CGI villain Kro. I would have liked to have seen more of Kit Harrington but I understand that he essentially a big tease for future projects (forever keeping my fingers crossed for a Midnight Sons movie...)
It's important to celebrate how visually breathtaking Eternals is from start to finish. There are of course some familiar Marvel aesthetics here and there, but Chloé Zhao has really laid down her own stamp. Even the fight scenes look unique, the Eternals powers always looking elegant. The climactic showdown is a particular highlight. This is all complimented by what is arguably the best music score in the MCU yet, with Game of Thrones veteran Ramin Djawadi coming through with something truly special.
In terms of wider MCU connection, Eternals very much feels like it's own thing, which works well with its unique feel. I am excited however to see some of these characters interact with other properties in the future. The proper introduction of Celestials is an exciting prospect, and that one shot near the end (you know the one), shows that technology is ready for the likes of Galactus to show up in the near future.
Eternals is yet another bold step for the MCU in a new phase. A movie with a hell of an ambitious scope that manages to stick the landing. I entered the cinema with slight trepidation due to it's early critical reception, and I left thinking that it's one of the best MCU entries so far, and I continue to be hyped for the future of the franchise.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Forever Fudge in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Forever Fudge by Nancy Coco is a sweet cozy mystery. Readers will salivate with the fudge recipes, be charmed on the Mackinac Island, and attempt to crack the murder mystery along with the main character Allie McMurphy.
Coco is a great pseudonym for the Fudge series. “I really enjoy writing these cozy mysteries with the humor and solving the puzzle. While writing my first series, I would put recipes on my blog. Then a friend of mine suggested I should write in this genre with a gluten free bakery. My last name was specifically chosen for this series. I love fudge, actually anything chocolate. The person in the apartment next to us said it always smells like chocolate in my house. Not only does it smell good but tastes good as well.”
Allie is an amateur sleuth. She and her dog Mal have an uncanny ability to find dead bodies. In the past, she has helped the police solve cases. As the owner of a delightful hotel and fudge shop on Mackinac Island, Allie’s excitement has grown after a television crew arrives on the island to film a television pilot for a mystery series. Throwing a wrench into the enthusiasm is the dead body found by Allie’s adorable Bichon-Poo puppy, Mal. Shot in the head, the body discovered has a letter with clues from chess moves. As the killings mount up, the murderer continues to taunt Allie, trying to get her to play his game.
The island plays a role in the story. “I have a huge family living in Michigan, which is where the island is located. If you ever saw the movie, “Somewhere in Time” starring Christopher Reeve, you can picture the setting. The island does not allow cars so people travel by foot, horse and carriage, or bicycle. It is a cool touristy place.”
There is also a love triangle. Allie is being wooed by two courters. She broke up with Trent Jessup because a long-distance relationship is not working, with him spending a lot of time in Chicago. The other beau is police chief Rex Manning who is being persistent in pursuing her, yet, willing to give her time and space.
“I thought it is interesting to compare ‘in love versus loving someone.’ I love my male friends but being ‘in love’ has excitement, a commitment, and intimacy. Allie is starting to build connections but some old timers see her as an outsider. One of those who accept her as part of the community is Rex who sees it as his responsibility to protect her and the community.”
Actual recipes are dispersed throughout the story. “I purposely did it this way to show what Allie is working on. I sprinkle it throughout to give the feel and flavor to what she is actually making. I try to relate it to the story when possible. I remember my first contract with Kensington Books required me to write ten recipes per book. Luckily, they downsized that amount. Since they had to be originals it was a relief.”
This story has an intriguing mystery, some romance, and humor. It is a fun who done it plot that has no shortage of suspects. Readers will be looking forward to the next installment, Fudge Bits, out next fall, a Halloween plot. It will highlight her cat instead of her dog that finds a Zombie body.
Coco is a great pseudonym for the Fudge series. “I really enjoy writing these cozy mysteries with the humor and solving the puzzle. While writing my first series, I would put recipes on my blog. Then a friend of mine suggested I should write in this genre with a gluten free bakery. My last name was specifically chosen for this series. I love fudge, actually anything chocolate. The person in the apartment next to us said it always smells like chocolate in my house. Not only does it smell good but tastes good as well.”
Allie is an amateur sleuth. She and her dog Mal have an uncanny ability to find dead bodies. In the past, she has helped the police solve cases. As the owner of a delightful hotel and fudge shop on Mackinac Island, Allie’s excitement has grown after a television crew arrives on the island to film a television pilot for a mystery series. Throwing a wrench into the enthusiasm is the dead body found by Allie’s adorable Bichon-Poo puppy, Mal. Shot in the head, the body discovered has a letter with clues from chess moves. As the killings mount up, the murderer continues to taunt Allie, trying to get her to play his game.
The island plays a role in the story. “I have a huge family living in Michigan, which is where the island is located. If you ever saw the movie, “Somewhere in Time” starring Christopher Reeve, you can picture the setting. The island does not allow cars so people travel by foot, horse and carriage, or bicycle. It is a cool touristy place.”
There is also a love triangle. Allie is being wooed by two courters. She broke up with Trent Jessup because a long-distance relationship is not working, with him spending a lot of time in Chicago. The other beau is police chief Rex Manning who is being persistent in pursuing her, yet, willing to give her time and space.
“I thought it is interesting to compare ‘in love versus loving someone.’ I love my male friends but being ‘in love’ has excitement, a commitment, and intimacy. Allie is starting to build connections but some old timers see her as an outsider. One of those who accept her as part of the community is Rex who sees it as his responsibility to protect her and the community.”
Actual recipes are dispersed throughout the story. “I purposely did it this way to show what Allie is working on. I sprinkle it throughout to give the feel and flavor to what she is actually making. I try to relate it to the story when possible. I remember my first contract with Kensington Books required me to write ten recipes per book. Luckily, they downsized that amount. Since they had to be originals it was a relief.”
This story has an intriguing mystery, some romance, and humor. It is a fun who done it plot that has no shortage of suspects. Readers will be looking forward to the next installment, Fudge Bits, out next fall, a Halloween plot. It will highlight her cat instead of her dog that finds a Zombie body.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Titanic in the Sky
Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence are two of the world’s most bankable stars. What with Pratt helping to resurrect prehistoric franchises like Jurassic Park and Lawrence turning The Hunger Games series into one of the biggest ever, it seems they are the people Hollywood wants to work with, right here, right now.
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
Tamsin Clark (15 KP) rated Facebook in Apps
Jan 20, 2018
Ability to keep in touch (2 more)
Pages for groups and local business
Ability to add photos and movies
Messenger and Facebook separate apps (6 more)
Facebook pushes their agenda
Adverts and content montoring
Report system only acknowledges what it wants
Enables cyber bullying
Site changes harmed small business
'Fake news' is a thing.
How much fear would you like today?
I used to really enjoy using Facebook, but over the years I've watched the site and the app(s) sink further and further into the doldrums of commercialism and sly financial gain. It's now easier to be reported and banned for making a nonsensical sentence than it is for threatening to kill someone. Pictures of female nipples are immediately banned but pictures of people torturing animals aren't.
Business pages have to pay to be seen and if they make posts and don't pay for them, they find their reach grossly reduced. Certain news outlets are encouraged and bolstered while others are all but hidden, and the 'trending' news always shows the very worst of the worst stories. There is also a lot of this 'fake news' around, where articles will show up with stories that are entirely untrue but made to look real, which takes even more time to research than it does to read in the first place. I'd say another 50% of posts are clickbait too. Feeds have been altered over and over again to the point that they're now almost impossible to customise to see what YOU want to see and not what Facebook wants you to see. And all the while, each click you make, each comment you write is read by the site and used to customise adverts and content to you, whether you like it or not. Even in messenger.
When it comes to content, Facebook does provide a good amount. On a personal level, if you restricted your feed to ONLY people you know in person and they didn't join any groups or flood your feed with game updates, then it would be a fine site to use for actual social interaction. It's possible to upload multiple images and videos, use links to display pages, media or otherwise that are of interest. You can set up alerts too but beware of being inundated by a million alerts every moment. There is a messaging service too; if you use a browser then it's all on the same site but if you use the apps, you have to have a separate app for Facebook and messenger and they don't work together, even though the Facebook app has a messenger icon as part of its design. It takes up a LOT of room on a phone, especially if you don't have much to start with. Also, if you block someone on messenger (even for a laugh) it automatically unfriends you on Facebook, yet supposedly the two are not connected so go figure.
I recently stopped using the site. I have a profile still as I have a lot of images and life events that I want to keep but I now barely browse once a week. Every thread descended into an argument, too many people use it as a troll hub to release the tensions of their unhappy lives on others while avoiding all responsibility for it. It ended up a bad way to waste time and made my anxiety issues a lot worse too.
Business pages have to pay to be seen and if they make posts and don't pay for them, they find their reach grossly reduced. Certain news outlets are encouraged and bolstered while others are all but hidden, and the 'trending' news always shows the very worst of the worst stories. There is also a lot of this 'fake news' around, where articles will show up with stories that are entirely untrue but made to look real, which takes even more time to research than it does to read in the first place. I'd say another 50% of posts are clickbait too. Feeds have been altered over and over again to the point that they're now almost impossible to customise to see what YOU want to see and not what Facebook wants you to see. And all the while, each click you make, each comment you write is read by the site and used to customise adverts and content to you, whether you like it or not. Even in messenger.
When it comes to content, Facebook does provide a good amount. On a personal level, if you restricted your feed to ONLY people you know in person and they didn't join any groups or flood your feed with game updates, then it would be a fine site to use for actual social interaction. It's possible to upload multiple images and videos, use links to display pages, media or otherwise that are of interest. You can set up alerts too but beware of being inundated by a million alerts every moment. There is a messaging service too; if you use a browser then it's all on the same site but if you use the apps, you have to have a separate app for Facebook and messenger and they don't work together, even though the Facebook app has a messenger icon as part of its design. It takes up a LOT of room on a phone, especially if you don't have much to start with. Also, if you block someone on messenger (even for a laugh) it automatically unfriends you on Facebook, yet supposedly the two are not connected so go figure.
I recently stopped using the site. I have a profile still as I have a lot of images and life events that I want to keep but I now barely browse once a week. Every thread descended into an argument, too many people use it as a troll hub to release the tensions of their unhappy lives on others while avoiding all responsibility for it. It ended up a bad way to waste time and made my anxiety issues a lot worse too.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Y is for Yesterday (Kinsey Millhone, #25) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
The 25th book in Sue Grafton's formidable Kinsey Millhone series actually kicks us back to 1979, where a group of male teens at a private school in Santa Teresa are found responsible for killing a female classmate. Several went to prison and now the one deemed responsible for the murder, Fritz McCabe, has been released. His parents hire Kinsey to assist them with a blackmail case--apparently these juvenile delinquents also made a sex tape before the murder, and it's turned up with Fritz's release. Kinsey quickly finds herself drawn up in their twisted world, but she's also watching her back, as Ned Lowe from [b:X|24940998|X (Kinsey Millhone, #24)|Sue Grafton|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1429811123s/24940998.jpg|44598633] still has his sights set on Kinsey.
The result is two pronged story--a focus on Kinsey as she tackles the McCabes and their blackmail/extortion plot, delving deeper into the 1979 murder and sexual assault, but also a continuation of the Ned Lowe story and its associated players. <i>There's a lot going on in this book,</i> as Grafton also throws in a plotline involving romantic shenanigans with Kinsey's cousin, Anna, plus Henry's hosting of the homeless Pearl and her pals in his backyard. Grafton is pretty deft at juggling multiple threads, but whew. The one thing I can say, is that both the Ned situation and the teens' videotape allow for some very timely and nuanced thoughts and ruminations on rape, and you sadly realize we haven't made any progress in society on this front since in the 1980s.
Alas, though, for me, <i>this novel gets off to a slow start and never fully recovers.</i> It took a while to keep track of all the teen players from '79 (and present), and the jumps in time in the storytelling don't really help. Even worse, our heroine, Kinsey, is off her game after the attack from Ned. Yes, she is still the Kinsey we know and love, but she's hurting, more cautious, and changed, and well, it's hard to read about sometimes.
The novel just seemed more tedious than usual and bogged down in some unnecessary details. There were definitely moments with Kinsey that made me smile and laugh, but otherwise, we don't have many characters to root for. The entire group originating in 1979 is pretty despicable. Their story picks up a bit at the end, and I was definitely interested in the outcome, but it didn't have the same flair as previous Kinsey novels. Of note, though, despite how different technology was in the late '70s, Grafton did a good job in denoting how teens remain teens, regardless the decade.
Overall, I will always love Kinsey, but the last two in this series have been a bit disappointing. Here's hoping that <i>Z</i> ends on a high note fitting our beloved heroine.
You can read my review of X <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1268956692?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">here</a>;.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
The result is two pronged story--a focus on Kinsey as she tackles the McCabes and their blackmail/extortion plot, delving deeper into the 1979 murder and sexual assault, but also a continuation of the Ned Lowe story and its associated players. <i>There's a lot going on in this book,</i> as Grafton also throws in a plotline involving romantic shenanigans with Kinsey's cousin, Anna, plus Henry's hosting of the homeless Pearl and her pals in his backyard. Grafton is pretty deft at juggling multiple threads, but whew. The one thing I can say, is that both the Ned situation and the teens' videotape allow for some very timely and nuanced thoughts and ruminations on rape, and you sadly realize we haven't made any progress in society on this front since in the 1980s.
Alas, though, for me, <i>this novel gets off to a slow start and never fully recovers.</i> It took a while to keep track of all the teen players from '79 (and present), and the jumps in time in the storytelling don't really help. Even worse, our heroine, Kinsey, is off her game after the attack from Ned. Yes, she is still the Kinsey we know and love, but she's hurting, more cautious, and changed, and well, it's hard to read about sometimes.
The novel just seemed more tedious than usual and bogged down in some unnecessary details. There were definitely moments with Kinsey that made me smile and laugh, but otherwise, we don't have many characters to root for. The entire group originating in 1979 is pretty despicable. Their story picks up a bit at the end, and I was definitely interested in the outcome, but it didn't have the same flair as previous Kinsey novels. Of note, though, despite how different technology was in the late '70s, Grafton did a good job in denoting how teens remain teens, regardless the decade.
Overall, I will always love Kinsey, but the last two in this series have been a bit disappointing. Here's hoping that <i>Z</i> ends on a high note fitting our beloved heroine.
You can read my review of X <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1268956692?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">here</a>;.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Kindergarten Teacher (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
It’s always nice to see teachers encouraging and motivating their students, but in Sara Colangelo’s The Kindergarten Teacher, this is taken to a terrifying new level. Based on an Israeli film of the same name, it explores the line between encouragement and obsession. What happens when a bored kindergarten teacher meets a child prodigy? That’s what this film attempts to answer.
When teacher Lisa Spinelli (Maggie Gyllenhaal) meets pre-schooler Jimmy (Parker Sevak), her life is flipped upside down. Lisa attends poetry night classes, but her work is frequently criticised by teacher Simon (Gael García Bernal). Her family life is unsatisfactory, with her two children underachieving in her eyes. Because of her dissatisfaction with her life, she finds herself latching onto Jimmy and attempting to live vicariously through him. The film takes the two of them on a journey, where Lisa does everything she can to nurture Jimmy’s talent.
The pair’s first encounter happens when Jimmy reads out a poem, which Lisa believes to be way beyond his age group. Throughout the film, she encourages him to write more and more, and the scenes where Jimmy reads his work aloud are captivating. This is Parker Sevak’s acting debut, and he is a seriously impressive child actor. Because the level of poetry in the film is so advanced, he speaks incredibly clearly which stuns both Lisa and the audience. He was the stand-out performance for me, and at the age of 5, manages to steal the show. I am keen to see more films starring him in the future.
That doesn’t mean Gyllenhaal’s performance was bad. In fact, this is probably my favourite of hers in such a long time. Her tenacity and passion are admirable at first and then turns into obsession very quickly. The dark turn her character takes genuinely shocked me, even though it’s inevitable she’s going to do whatever it takes to get her own way. Despite this, I felt sorry for her throughout, which is a testament to the strength of Gyllenhaal’s acting. Lisa does questionable things, she lashes out, yet I was still hoping for a better outcome. I was hoping she’d see sense one way or another. She’s a problematic character for sure, but she doesn’t have to be this way. I felt like she had the power to stop what she was doing.
The film’s pacing worked very well for me, slowly building until the final act. I loved the way it ended, as it left me with a sinking feeling. The last line by Jimmy broke my heart, and if you’ve seen it for yourself, I’m sure you’ll understand why. The screenplay is brilliantly written and tells an incredibly controversial story of what is essentially child exploitation. Jimmy’s young and impressionable mind is taken advantage of based on his talents, resulting in a series of increasingly concerning events. Just when you think Lisa can’t cross any more lines, she does, and it’s enough to shock anyone.
I was completely glued to the screen for the entire third act. If you’re looking for a fresh, thought-provoking drama then I would certainly recommend this. Maggie Gyllenhaal is at the top of her game in The Kindergarten Teacher, delivering a performance that leaves audiences feeling conflicted. This is certainly a heavy film, but I’d also consider it a must-watch and a cautionary tale for the modern age.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-kindergarten-teacher-2019/
When teacher Lisa Spinelli (Maggie Gyllenhaal) meets pre-schooler Jimmy (Parker Sevak), her life is flipped upside down. Lisa attends poetry night classes, but her work is frequently criticised by teacher Simon (Gael García Bernal). Her family life is unsatisfactory, with her two children underachieving in her eyes. Because of her dissatisfaction with her life, she finds herself latching onto Jimmy and attempting to live vicariously through him. The film takes the two of them on a journey, where Lisa does everything she can to nurture Jimmy’s talent.
The pair’s first encounter happens when Jimmy reads out a poem, which Lisa believes to be way beyond his age group. Throughout the film, she encourages him to write more and more, and the scenes where Jimmy reads his work aloud are captivating. This is Parker Sevak’s acting debut, and he is a seriously impressive child actor. Because the level of poetry in the film is so advanced, he speaks incredibly clearly which stuns both Lisa and the audience. He was the stand-out performance for me, and at the age of 5, manages to steal the show. I am keen to see more films starring him in the future.
That doesn’t mean Gyllenhaal’s performance was bad. In fact, this is probably my favourite of hers in such a long time. Her tenacity and passion are admirable at first and then turns into obsession very quickly. The dark turn her character takes genuinely shocked me, even though it’s inevitable she’s going to do whatever it takes to get her own way. Despite this, I felt sorry for her throughout, which is a testament to the strength of Gyllenhaal’s acting. Lisa does questionable things, she lashes out, yet I was still hoping for a better outcome. I was hoping she’d see sense one way or another. She’s a problematic character for sure, but she doesn’t have to be this way. I felt like she had the power to stop what she was doing.
The film’s pacing worked very well for me, slowly building until the final act. I loved the way it ended, as it left me with a sinking feeling. The last line by Jimmy broke my heart, and if you’ve seen it for yourself, I’m sure you’ll understand why. The screenplay is brilliantly written and tells an incredibly controversial story of what is essentially child exploitation. Jimmy’s young and impressionable mind is taken advantage of based on his talents, resulting in a series of increasingly concerning events. Just when you think Lisa can’t cross any more lines, she does, and it’s enough to shock anyone.
I was completely glued to the screen for the entire third act. If you’re looking for a fresh, thought-provoking drama then I would certainly recommend this. Maggie Gyllenhaal is at the top of her game in The Kindergarten Teacher, delivering a performance that leaves audiences feeling conflicted. This is certainly a heavy film, but I’d also consider it a must-watch and a cautionary tale for the modern age.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-kindergarten-teacher-2019/
Never meet your heroes is the succinct tag line of this Amazon original series, dealing with the notion that all superheroes are morally good… but what if they weren’t…?
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jul 24, 2021
Enjoyable...enough
If you have any interest in checking out F9:THE FAST SAGA, then you have seen at least 1 (if not more) of the other 9 films in this series - and you pretty much know what to expect.
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film not quite sure what it’s trying to be.
Idris Elba after scoring a mammoth hit with UK TV’s “Luther” has really struggled to make a breakthrough as a leading man into A-grade movies. Although he’s had some strong supporting roles (“Molly’s Game” and “Star Trek Beyond” for example) and small bit parts in the Marvel universe, when he has landed a lead role they are in films best forgotton (e.g. “Bastille Day”; “The Dark Tower”). This is seldom down to his performance. Here he is given more of a chance to shine, in what is almost a two-hander with Kate Winslet for most of the film. And he is the best thing in the film: lots of the brooding look that he is so famous for.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.