Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Interview (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Thanks to the negative attention that “The Interview” received, it will be viewed by many more people than it would have without the controversy. The film, which was almost never released due to a cyberattack on Sony, is now the most widely accessible of this season.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
Lovestruck Choose Your Romance
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
Lovestruck is your portal to the greatest interactive romance stories! Your happily ever after may...
Writers' Forum Magazine
Book and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Writers’ Forum is the markets leading title for writers. Every issue features special interviews...
Jungle of Stone: The Extraordinary Journey of John L. Stephens and Frederick Catherwood, and the Discovery of the Lost Civilization of the Maya
Book
New York Times Bestseller (Expeditions) "Thrilling...A captivating history of two men who...
Indian for Everyone: The Home Cook's Guide to Traditional Favorites
Book
Now beautifully repackaged in convenient paperback format, Indian for Everyone is the third book by...
Boximize: Structured note taking, personal database, form builder, manager and organizer!
Productivity and Business
App
** Featured by Apple as best new productivity app ** Boximize is a structured note taking app that...
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Seven Husbands Of Evelyn in Books
Apr 1, 2019
I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.
“I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.”
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Contagion (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Steven Soderbergh has produced some fine films in his time as an established director; Ocean’s Eleven was a sublime mix of dark humour and action, whilst Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen remained decent but not exactly pulse-racing. Here, it seems Soderbergh sticks to what he knows best, how to deliver a brilliantly shot, gripping film. Here we have, Contagion.
An all-star cast with the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon and Jude Law is bolstered by excellent cinematography and nail-biting claustrophobia in a film which never forgets its purpose: to shock.
Contagion starts with a cough, a single cough from a single woman, which in turn spreads across the globe, killing over 20 million people in every country on the planet and becoming one of the worst viral epidemics the world has ever seen. The directing style is exquisite and focuses on the days after the first contraction of the deadly virus; close-ups of door knobs and drinking fountains add to the heightened panic and sense of claustrophobia and the continuous references to bird-flu bring it home how frail a race we actually are.
Soderbergh gets stuck into the details of the virus straight away and the pace never lets up, you’ll be gasping for air with the infected as you struggle to keep pace with what’s going on; it’s a relentless film, much like the disease itself. The movie is one of many recent developments that have parallel storylines running throughout; Kate Winslet is a scientist at the centre of disease research, whilst Matt Damon plays a middle aged father protecting his daughter.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays a wife and mother who has been embarking on a dangerous affair whilst away on business and it has to be said, she is excellent in her role, even though it lasts a mere 20 minutes before she pegs it. Her illness is well controlled on screen and you share the pain she is in.
Matt Damon is somehow immune to the virus after losing his wife (Paltrow) and more disturbingly, his son in scenes unbefitting of the films 12A certificate and Kate Winslet looks surprisingly angelic in her body bag… oops, didn’t mean to spoil that for you.
Alas, it’s not all good news as Jude Law pops up now and again as an annoying journalist trying to discover a cure and shame the money grabbing pharmaceutical companies, he plays the character well and you definitely buy into his sense of ‘crazy’ but out of all the stories shuffling for your attention, his is the one you care least about.
Unfortunately, some other small issues hold the film from being a complete success. Parallel storylines are all well and good but there are perhaps too many here. Whilst focusing on Winslet dealing with the fact she has contracted the virus, you forget about how Mr. Damon is coping looking after his potentially not immune daughter and the same can be said for Law’s character too. Which one are we to focus on?
Contagion is artistically, a brilliant film, but it could be said that it’s more style over substance. Yes, the characters have depth, though not as much as we’d like, the story is well written and the shots are beautifully choreographed but that good, solid story is lost about half way through as Soderbergh tries to handle all the different viewpoints. It’s a fantastic film, but not the outright success it could have been. You will however, be reaching for that anti-bacterial hand cleanser a little more often.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/08/review-contagion-2011/
An all-star cast with the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon and Jude Law is bolstered by excellent cinematography and nail-biting claustrophobia in a film which never forgets its purpose: to shock.
Contagion starts with a cough, a single cough from a single woman, which in turn spreads across the globe, killing over 20 million people in every country on the planet and becoming one of the worst viral epidemics the world has ever seen. The directing style is exquisite and focuses on the days after the first contraction of the deadly virus; close-ups of door knobs and drinking fountains add to the heightened panic and sense of claustrophobia and the continuous references to bird-flu bring it home how frail a race we actually are.
Soderbergh gets stuck into the details of the virus straight away and the pace never lets up, you’ll be gasping for air with the infected as you struggle to keep pace with what’s going on; it’s a relentless film, much like the disease itself. The movie is one of many recent developments that have parallel storylines running throughout; Kate Winslet is a scientist at the centre of disease research, whilst Matt Damon plays a middle aged father protecting his daughter.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays a wife and mother who has been embarking on a dangerous affair whilst away on business and it has to be said, she is excellent in her role, even though it lasts a mere 20 minutes before she pegs it. Her illness is well controlled on screen and you share the pain she is in.
Matt Damon is somehow immune to the virus after losing his wife (Paltrow) and more disturbingly, his son in scenes unbefitting of the films 12A certificate and Kate Winslet looks surprisingly angelic in her body bag… oops, didn’t mean to spoil that for you.
Alas, it’s not all good news as Jude Law pops up now and again as an annoying journalist trying to discover a cure and shame the money grabbing pharmaceutical companies, he plays the character well and you definitely buy into his sense of ‘crazy’ but out of all the stories shuffling for your attention, his is the one you care least about.
Unfortunately, some other small issues hold the film from being a complete success. Parallel storylines are all well and good but there are perhaps too many here. Whilst focusing on Winslet dealing with the fact she has contracted the virus, you forget about how Mr. Damon is coping looking after his potentially not immune daughter and the same can be said for Law’s character too. Which one are we to focus on?
Contagion is artistically, a brilliant film, but it could be said that it’s more style over substance. Yes, the characters have depth, though not as much as we’d like, the story is well written and the shots are beautifully choreographed but that good, solid story is lost about half way through as Soderbergh tries to handle all the different viewpoints. It’s a fantastic film, but not the outright success it could have been. You will however, be reaching for that anti-bacterial hand cleanser a little more often.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/08/review-contagion-2011/