Search
Search results
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Surgeon (Rizzoli & Isles, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>Trigger warning:</b> this book is heavily focused on sexual assault and rape.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated I am No One in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Intriguing but ultimately disappointing
Written in the first person I Am No One is the account of recent events in the life of the fictional NY academic, Jeremy O'Keefe. O'Keefe, ironically an expert in surveillance, finds himself the subject of apparent scrutiny by unknown observers, a discovery that propels him into paranoia and pushes him to the boundaries of sanity. As the story is unpacked, page by page, it becomes clear that O'Keefe's paranoia is not unfounded, and that his initial confusion as to why anyone would want to bother observing the behaviour of a mundane and only moderately successful Professor actually belies a deeper understanding of the cause and his actions that precipitated it.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I have had my issues with Spike Lee as a filmmaker over the years. It always seemed like his next film was the most “important” one, and that he didn’t make a film if it didn’t have something to say about race and the oppression of African Americans. Which in itself is not a problem, as long as that point isn’t laboured to the detriment of all other aspects of the film. My problem wasn’t the message, it was that a lot of the films were dull or just not that great.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Well where do I start? I love the fact that there is no substantial synopsis for this film, a lot have just gone with "the ongoing adventures of Newt Scamander" or similarly vague offerings.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Her Wicked Ways in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Genre: Historical
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Berserk Excursion Down Uncanny Valley.
“I see you”. James Cameron‘s fingerprints are all over this one, as producer ahead of his threatened (and with this movie-goer, entirely unwanted) Avatar sequels. Alita is a huge great smelly CGI mess of a film, but quite fun with it.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
At last, the hilarious Brexit comedy we’ve all been waiting for.
As comedy goes it’s classic gold! London has been transferred, presumably via a futuristic big-arsed forklift truck of some kind, onto a huge chassis and is now chugging its way across mainland Europe. Needing fuel, it has the capability to gobble-up other roving towns and cities (take that Barnier!) which London ‘digests’ (smoke that Tusk!). Curiously, the captured cities’ inhabitants are not exterminated but integrated into the City’s population: so much for any anti-immigration policy! (LOL).
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
It’s a turf war on a global scale.
I saw this as part of a “Secret Cinema” event by Cineworld cinemas in the UK. That’s where you go to see a pre-release movie without knowing what it is going to be. It’s an interesting litmus test for a) a movie’s upfront marketing appeal (how many people get up and walk out when the BBFC title appears) and b) the “grab ’em early” appeal of the movie itself (how many people get up and walk out during the first 20 minutes of so).
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Time to Exhale.
I saw this as a Cineworld “Secret Unlimited Screening” event (for non-UK readers, Cineworld is one of the main movie-theater chains), so went in – like the majority of the audience I suspect – predicting early sight of Lara Croft in skin tight shorts! This was a bit different! A secret screening is an interesting concept, and really tests the metal of a film in engaging its audience early. This one failed to some degree, with seven people (I was counting) walking out in the first 10 minutes. (To be fair on those seven, the film’s first 20 minutes are rather laborious; and to be fair on the film, this was a pretty full auditorium so as a percentage drop out it was low).
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…