Search
Search results
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Oct 10, 2020
Excellent, but not quite as good as the first
For me, the first series of The Boys was a brilliant surprise and the wait for this second series has been a rather frustrating and impatient experience, especially as Amazon decided not to release the entire series at once. Fortunately by the time the credits rolled on the series 2 finale, it was definitely worth the wait.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Whisper to Me in Books
Jun 24, 2019
This book is fantastic. I know it sounds cheesy, but I literally could not put it down.
The plot isn't just one simple story line; it's twists and turns and ups and downs all over the place. Cass is writing to someone - who is never named, actually - recapping events. The style means that she can switch from talking about the past to describing her current situation and feelings, in the present. She's able to reflect on the past, add a whole new level to the story. I loved it. And when "you" are in the story, she describes you but also skips the mundane details that you would already know, keeping the story really interesting. It really sounded like she was writing to someone.
Cass's letter/email is an apology, an explanation, for hurting someone. She acknowledges this right from the start, but it takes a long, long time to get into what really happened. Not in a boring, dragged-out way, but in a suspenseful way. Constantly, I wanted to know what she was referring to, what had happened to require the writing of this email.
So the plot is, as I said, not a straight line at all. But some important things are:
Cass starts to hear a voice. A voice that's not there, not really.
Cass meets "you" and the voice is quiet and everything is great. But things go wrong. Things go so, so wrong.
Cass's dad has issues - untreated PTSD from serving as a MARINE.
Cass has some, uh, unacknowledged issues caused by the death of her mother.
Cass meets Paris. Paris is sunshine and love and happiness.
There's a serial killer on the loose.
As you can see, there is a lot going on in this book. I won't tell you how all the things link together, but it's so clever. And oh, so heartbreaking.
Let's just say that you know it's coming - you can tell by Cass's choice of language that something is going to happen - but you still hope for some miracle.
Leading on from that last point, the characters are fantastic. Paris is honestly just amazing; I really fell in love with her. Probably more than Cass's actual love interest. Oops. And Cass's dad is so complex, clearly struggling with some stuff, and although he does wrong and he gets angry and he scares Cass sometimes you don't hate him, not really, and neither does Cass. He's her dad and she loves him, and he's trying his best and I could really feel that.
Some books really do just click with you, and this was one of those for me. I made excuses to read for longer than planned, stayed up later. It was lovely to have that excitement back when reading, even if I do feel kind of sad and empty now it's finished.
Part of me wants some kind of follow-up, but I also know that that would kind of ruin the whole mysterious, imaginative element that the ending leaves. I don't know.
I would completely definitely certainly recommend it. It covers so much - mental illnesses and single parents and love and death and sex workers and just so many different aspects of life that you maybe wouldn't expect to find thrown together into one book. But Cass doesn't seem crazy, isn't made out to be some kind of mental patient. And no single theme dominates the story - this isn't just about love, or just about murder. It's about life.
Definitely 5 stars. I adored this book.
The plot isn't just one simple story line; it's twists and turns and ups and downs all over the place. Cass is writing to someone - who is never named, actually - recapping events. The style means that she can switch from talking about the past to describing her current situation and feelings, in the present. She's able to reflect on the past, add a whole new level to the story. I loved it. And when "you" are in the story, she describes you but also skips the mundane details that you would already know, keeping the story really interesting. It really sounded like she was writing to someone.
Cass's letter/email is an apology, an explanation, for hurting someone. She acknowledges this right from the start, but it takes a long, long time to get into what really happened. Not in a boring, dragged-out way, but in a suspenseful way. Constantly, I wanted to know what she was referring to, what had happened to require the writing of this email.
So the plot is, as I said, not a straight line at all. But some important things are:
Cass starts to hear a voice. A voice that's not there, not really.
Cass meets "you" and the voice is quiet and everything is great. But things go wrong. Things go so, so wrong.
Cass's dad has issues - untreated PTSD from serving as a MARINE.
Cass has some, uh, unacknowledged issues caused by the death of her mother.
Cass meets Paris. Paris is sunshine and love and happiness.
There's a serial killer on the loose.
As you can see, there is a lot going on in this book. I won't tell you how all the things link together, but it's so clever. And oh, so heartbreaking.
Let's just say that you know it's coming - you can tell by Cass's choice of language that something is going to happen - but you still hope for some miracle.
Leading on from that last point, the characters are fantastic. Paris is honestly just amazing; I really fell in love with her. Probably more than Cass's actual love interest. Oops. And Cass's dad is so complex, clearly struggling with some stuff, and although he does wrong and he gets angry and he scares Cass sometimes you don't hate him, not really, and neither does Cass. He's her dad and she loves him, and he's trying his best and I could really feel that.
Some books really do just click with you, and this was one of those for me. I made excuses to read for longer than planned, stayed up later. It was lovely to have that excitement back when reading, even if I do feel kind of sad and empty now it's finished.
Part of me wants some kind of follow-up, but I also know that that would kind of ruin the whole mysterious, imaginative element that the ending leaves. I don't know.
I would completely definitely certainly recommend it. It covers so much - mental illnesses and single parents and love and death and sex workers and just so many different aspects of life that you maybe wouldn't expect to find thrown together into one book. But Cass doesn't seem crazy, isn't made out to be some kind of mental patient. And no single theme dominates the story - this isn't just about love, or just about murder. It's about life.
Definitely 5 stars. I adored this book.
Darren (1599 KP) rated You're Not You (2014) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: You’re Not You starts on Kate’s (Swank) 35th birthday, a classic pianist that notice something isn’t right with her body, 18 months later Kate is in need of care, even with her husband Evan (Duhamel) needing to work, while finding a new carer to help with ALS care.
That new carer is college student Bec (Rossum) who parties every night and doesn’t come with an off switch. Bec is the only person Kate want to care for her as she is the only one that treats her like a person not a patient and after Kate learns Evan has been having an affair, it leaves Kate and Bec together to handle the caring and living the remaining time with the disease.
Thoughts on You’re Not You
Characters – Kate was a successful pianist, happily married and wonderful party host, she soon starts to get the first symptoms of ALS which comes on strong, she now needs constant caring, but is tired of the nurses that treat her like a patient, she chooses Bec who offers her friendship, while also offering Bec life advice in a time where she could be going with no direction. Bec is a directionless brash college student who gets given a chance to care of Kate, she becomes the biggest challenge of her life, teaching her responsibility and helping guide her in the right direction. Evan is the husband of Kate, he has tried to care for her the best he can, but can’t give up his job which has put a distance between the two, causing him to have had an affair.
Performances – Hilary Swank has two Oscars to her name, this performance here shows the talent she has once again, she is fantastic as the victim of the ALS disease. Emmy Rossum has made a name for herself on television, but here you feel she should have broken out because her performance is great to. Josh Duhamel is good as the character we want to hate through the film.
Story – The story throws the spotlight on ALS, we follow one person suffering from the disease who knows the sacrifices people will have to make to care for her, we see how people who are sick do want to be treated like people rather than just patients and giving them, this treatment will make their remaining time worthwhile. We do have a story about how the older (but not old) woman helps give the lost student a direction for her life. This is a story about the battle against a disease which is taking people everyday, how the people around them need there for them to make the remain time in their lives positive.
Settings – The settings in this film show the different lives both Kate and Bec have come from, how they are joined together in the same battle to support each other. I feel the settings help us understand the disease making made by the characters in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Enjoying a drink or two together.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The only thing I feel we would have liked more of would be the medical side of what could have been done to try and help as we have plenty of talks about experimental treatments.
Final Thoughts – This is a very good drama, we get to see how one person’s suffering could impact many people and how helpless they will feel while fighting it.
Overall: Powerful, heart-breaking and inspiring.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/youre-not-you-2014/
That new carer is college student Bec (Rossum) who parties every night and doesn’t come with an off switch. Bec is the only person Kate want to care for her as she is the only one that treats her like a person not a patient and after Kate learns Evan has been having an affair, it leaves Kate and Bec together to handle the caring and living the remaining time with the disease.
Thoughts on You’re Not You
Characters – Kate was a successful pianist, happily married and wonderful party host, she soon starts to get the first symptoms of ALS which comes on strong, she now needs constant caring, but is tired of the nurses that treat her like a patient, she chooses Bec who offers her friendship, while also offering Bec life advice in a time where she could be going with no direction. Bec is a directionless brash college student who gets given a chance to care of Kate, she becomes the biggest challenge of her life, teaching her responsibility and helping guide her in the right direction. Evan is the husband of Kate, he has tried to care for her the best he can, but can’t give up his job which has put a distance between the two, causing him to have had an affair.
Performances – Hilary Swank has two Oscars to her name, this performance here shows the talent she has once again, she is fantastic as the victim of the ALS disease. Emmy Rossum has made a name for herself on television, but here you feel she should have broken out because her performance is great to. Josh Duhamel is good as the character we want to hate through the film.
Story – The story throws the spotlight on ALS, we follow one person suffering from the disease who knows the sacrifices people will have to make to care for her, we see how people who are sick do want to be treated like people rather than just patients and giving them, this treatment will make their remaining time worthwhile. We do have a story about how the older (but not old) woman helps give the lost student a direction for her life. This is a story about the battle against a disease which is taking people everyday, how the people around them need there for them to make the remain time in their lives positive.
Settings – The settings in this film show the different lives both Kate and Bec have come from, how they are joined together in the same battle to support each other. I feel the settings help us understand the disease making made by the characters in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Enjoying a drink or two together.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The only thing I feel we would have liked more of would be the medical side of what could have been done to try and help as we have plenty of talks about experimental treatments.
Final Thoughts – This is a very good drama, we get to see how one person’s suffering could impact many people and how helpless they will feel while fighting it.
Overall: Powerful, heart-breaking and inspiring.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/youre-not-you-2014/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Hulk Continues to Smash...and I'm Here For All of it
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into this expecting some good action and some decent graphics. I did not expect to find so much comedy. This was a real treat to watch.
There's just something about "seeing" The Predator when he's invisible that really hits the spot. It gets you on the edge of the seat and fills you with just the right sort of anxiety. Had someone tapped me on the shoulder during the first time that happened in the film I probably would have swung for them while wailing like a banshee.
Lots of actors that you'd recognise from other things and everyone has their own little quirk that works well together in the scenes. It didn't feel like any of the talent was underused, which can be an issue with people in bit parts.
Who knew that Predators had a sense of humour too?! I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a severed limb in such an ingenious way before.
One bit that I really enjoyed reminded me of Futurama. You win bonus nerdy points if you spot it too. It had me tittering away.
There are excellent characters. Genuinely can't think of any that I didn't like in some way. Rory is brilliant in this, great acting from Tremblay and he was blessed with some amazing lines. His grasp of reverse psychology had us all laughing. There's also a scene in the military facility where the Predator wakes up and I actually believed the way everyone reacted. So often it's a mass of crazed running in all directions or everyone is running for one door, but this one felt like a perfectly choreographed event. We see incredible friendships and camaraderie that really comes to the forefront in the conclusion of the film.
It seems a bit redundant to be saying this because you'd think people would know... but they don't seem to... Military weapon designers: tactical weapons that are made for covert ops and have LED lights on them are in fact not very tactical. Predators: If you just stopped playing with your prey you could have conquered the Earth years ago.
*exhales slowly* So this 3D thing... I really and truly hate space shots in 3D, especially the ones that are basically just black space and stars. Really difficult to look at. Thankfully that didn't last for too long and was replaced what was quite good effects of the spaceship jumping to Earth. There were also a few shots from the sniper perspective that worked well. The rest of the film I found that it went quite badly from fuzzy to sharp and I couldn't quite tell what was supposed to be the focus. I'd have said that was the screen's 3D rather than the film itself, but it still struck me as odd that it was going between the two. I will put it down to just a bad screening.
What should you do?
You should see this, probably in 2D rather than 3D. It's funny, full of action and just the right amount of nostalgia.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Part of me wants the translation device. Part of me wants the invisibility ball (but not afterwards). Part of me wants that tranq gun. The opinion will change depending on how my day goes.
There's just something about "seeing" The Predator when he's invisible that really hits the spot. It gets you on the edge of the seat and fills you with just the right sort of anxiety. Had someone tapped me on the shoulder during the first time that happened in the film I probably would have swung for them while wailing like a banshee.
Lots of actors that you'd recognise from other things and everyone has their own little quirk that works well together in the scenes. It didn't feel like any of the talent was underused, which can be an issue with people in bit parts.
Who knew that Predators had a sense of humour too?! I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a severed limb in such an ingenious way before.
One bit that I really enjoyed reminded me of Futurama. You win bonus nerdy points if you spot it too. It had me tittering away.
There are excellent characters. Genuinely can't think of any that I didn't like in some way. Rory is brilliant in this, great acting from Tremblay and he was blessed with some amazing lines. His grasp of reverse psychology had us all laughing. There's also a scene in the military facility where the Predator wakes up and I actually believed the way everyone reacted. So often it's a mass of crazed running in all directions or everyone is running for one door, but this one felt like a perfectly choreographed event. We see incredible friendships and camaraderie that really comes to the forefront in the conclusion of the film.
It seems a bit redundant to be saying this because you'd think people would know... but they don't seem to... Military weapon designers: tactical weapons that are made for covert ops and have LED lights on them are in fact not very tactical. Predators: If you just stopped playing with your prey you could have conquered the Earth years ago.
*exhales slowly* So this 3D thing... I really and truly hate space shots in 3D, especially the ones that are basically just black space and stars. Really difficult to look at. Thankfully that didn't last for too long and was replaced what was quite good effects of the spaceship jumping to Earth. There were also a few shots from the sniper perspective that worked well. The rest of the film I found that it went quite badly from fuzzy to sharp and I couldn't quite tell what was supposed to be the focus. I'd have said that was the screen's 3D rather than the film itself, but it still struck me as odd that it was going between the two. I will put it down to just a bad screening.
What should you do?
You should see this, probably in 2D rather than 3D. It's funny, full of action and just the right amount of nostalgia.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Part of me wants the translation device. Part of me wants the invisibility ball (but not afterwards). Part of me wants that tranq gun. The opinion will change depending on how my day goes.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The People Vs. Larry Flynt (1996) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
The tragedy. The comedy. The pornography.
Not many filmmakers can say they won two Oscars and for Best Director in two different decades and were nominated a third time in a different decade. The recently deceased movie maestro Milos Forman is one that could.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
ClareR (5879 KP) rated The Testaments (The Handmaid's Tale #2) in Books
Sep 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 23, 2019)
This was well worth the wait!
The Testaments is the book that many people have been waiting for since the TV series first aired (me!). It seems that everyone likes a sequel. Well, most people anyway, because for every person that I’ve seen rave about how good this book is, I’ve seen as many say that it doesn’t live up to the original. Personally, I’m glad that it’s not written in the same style as the first book. The Handmaid’s Tale was written at a different time. 1985 is a lifetime away. We were entering a time then, where women felt hope for the future - equality seemed achievable. I’m really not so sure that we feel the same way in 2019. Certain developed countries are making it more difficult for women to have abortions, more US states are making it illegal, female children are still being married to adult males in many developing countries; climate change is having a huge impact on the poorest countries and as Margaret Atwood has said, with any disasters, natural or otherwise, it’s always the women and children who suffer the worst deprivation. So Margaret Atwood had all of these things at her disposal when she wrote The Testaments. Everything that happens to the women in Gilead has happened, or is happening, somewhere in the world.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
WebProtectMe Safe Browser with Parental Control
Productivity and Utilities
App
WebProtectMe Safe Browser(tm) is the best parental controls and security browser, providing your...
Plan Monitor
Finance and Utilities
App
SAVE A LOT OF MONEY ON YOUR PHONE BILL. 4 BASIC TOOLS IN 1 APP! DO NOT MISS THE OPPORTUNITY This...