Search
Search results
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Becs (244 KP) rated A Raisin in the Sun in Books
Oct 2, 2019
They honestly need more books like this. When my husband found out that I was getting A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry, he grew excited and he never does that unless it’s a science-related book. That was when I knew I was going to like this beautiful novel. When I started to read it, I rushed through it. Not in a “I just want to finish this book” way, more like “I FREAKING LOVE THIS BOOK AND I DON’T EVER WANT IT TO END” way. That says something, right?
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
Genre: Literary Classic, Play, Drama, Fiction
Synopsis: First produced in 1959, A Raisin in the Sun was awarded the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and hailed as a watershed in American drama. Not only a pioneering work by an African-American playwright – Lorraine Hansberry’s play was also a radically new representation of black life, resolutely authentic, fiercely unsentimental, and unflinching in its vision of what happens to people whose dreams are constantly deferred. In her portrait of an embattled Chicago family, Hansberry anticapted issues that range from generational clashes to the civil rights and women’s movements. She also posed the essential questions – about identity, justice, and moral responsibility – at the heart of those great struggles. The result is an American classic.
Audience/Reading Level: Middle School +
Interests: Plays, dramas, literary classics, racial segregation, women’s movement, 50s era.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: Not at all, I rushed through it because I loved it so much! As in some of Shakespeares plays, you don’t get stuck on the general language of the era it was written, as it’s written close to a book you would get from this era.
Promise: “Award-winning drama of the hopes and aspirations of a struggling, working-class family living on the South Side of Chicago connected profoundly with the psyche of black America–and changed American theater forever.” – It did. 🙂
Insights: I love reading plays as it’s a way to step out of a comfort zone of reading Young Adult novels. It gives me a chance to dip into my theater/acting side and use what I’ve learned from theatre classes. A Raisin in the Sun is a well-written American classic that honestly should be read in every school from middle school and up. The lessens that are taught throughout the play are subtle yet obvious which creates a background that we can use in our every day life.
Ah-Ha Moment: The moment that Beneatha came into the picture and was a total feminist. Man, she’s my favorite character besides Mama (Lena Younger) and her little plant.
Favorite Quotes: “Beneatha: Love him? There is nothing left to love. Mama: There is always something left to love. And if you ain’t learned that, you ain’t learned nothing. (Looking at her) Have you cried for that boy today? I don’t mean for yourself and for the family ’cause we lost the money. I mean for him: what he been through and what it done to him. Child, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done good and made things easy for everybody? Well then, you ain’t through learning – because that ain’t the time at all. It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe in hisself ’cause the world done whipped him so! when you starts measuring somebody, measure him right, child, measure him right. Make sure you done taken into account what hills and valleys he come through before he got to wherever he is.”
“Mama, you don’t understand. It’s all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don’t acept. It’s not important. I am not going out and commit crimes or be immoral because I don’t believe in God. I don’t even think about it. It’s just that I get so tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God! There is only Man, and it’s he who makes miracles!”
What will you gain: A haunting yet revealing play that will be as fresh of a read today, as it was in the 50’s.
Aesthetics: The entire play. The cover. The characters. The underlying meaning beneath it all. The era it was written and is based off of. Just everything about this little book.
“I want to fly! I want to touch the sun!”
“Finish your eggs first.”
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
Genre: Literary Classic, Play, Drama, Fiction
Synopsis: First produced in 1959, A Raisin in the Sun was awarded the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and hailed as a watershed in American drama. Not only a pioneering work by an African-American playwright – Lorraine Hansberry’s play was also a radically new representation of black life, resolutely authentic, fiercely unsentimental, and unflinching in its vision of what happens to people whose dreams are constantly deferred. In her portrait of an embattled Chicago family, Hansberry anticapted issues that range from generational clashes to the civil rights and women’s movements. She also posed the essential questions – about identity, justice, and moral responsibility – at the heart of those great struggles. The result is an American classic.
Audience/Reading Level: Middle School +
Interests: Plays, dramas, literary classics, racial segregation, women’s movement, 50s era.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: Not at all, I rushed through it because I loved it so much! As in some of Shakespeares plays, you don’t get stuck on the general language of the era it was written, as it’s written close to a book you would get from this era.
Promise: “Award-winning drama of the hopes and aspirations of a struggling, working-class family living on the South Side of Chicago connected profoundly with the psyche of black America–and changed American theater forever.” – It did. 🙂
Insights: I love reading plays as it’s a way to step out of a comfort zone of reading Young Adult novels. It gives me a chance to dip into my theater/acting side and use what I’ve learned from theatre classes. A Raisin in the Sun is a well-written American classic that honestly should be read in every school from middle school and up. The lessens that are taught throughout the play are subtle yet obvious which creates a background that we can use in our every day life.
Ah-Ha Moment: The moment that Beneatha came into the picture and was a total feminist. Man, she’s my favorite character besides Mama (Lena Younger) and her little plant.
Favorite Quotes: “Beneatha: Love him? There is nothing left to love. Mama: There is always something left to love. And if you ain’t learned that, you ain’t learned nothing. (Looking at her) Have you cried for that boy today? I don’t mean for yourself and for the family ’cause we lost the money. I mean for him: what he been through and what it done to him. Child, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done good and made things easy for everybody? Well then, you ain’t through learning – because that ain’t the time at all. It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe in hisself ’cause the world done whipped him so! when you starts measuring somebody, measure him right, child, measure him right. Make sure you done taken into account what hills and valleys he come through before he got to wherever he is.”
“Mama, you don’t understand. It’s all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don’t acept. It’s not important. I am not going out and commit crimes or be immoral because I don’t believe in God. I don’t even think about it. It’s just that I get so tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God! There is only Man, and it’s he who makes miracles!”
What will you gain: A haunting yet revealing play that will be as fresh of a read today, as it was in the 50’s.
Aesthetics: The entire play. The cover. The characters. The underlying meaning beneath it all. The era it was written and is based off of. Just everything about this little book.
“I want to fly! I want to touch the sun!”
“Finish your eggs first.”
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50’s and older as they don’t seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
Let me give you the background on this one. Many years ago (when La La Land was due out in the cinemas) ITV2 were showing the new series of Scorpion in their prime time drama spot, this feature was sponsored by something and quite often that's a film. For the season's entire run it was sponsored by... you guessed it... La La Land. Every episode you'd have to see up to 8 clips of the film without any real context about what it was, and worst of all there was very little deviation, you could be seeing the same clip over and over again for 20 or so episodes. I love musicals and I love Emma Stone but this pushed me so far over the edge that I swore I'd never watch it. (The same goes for Moulin Rouge which I also now have to watch) Evidently though I'm a grown ass adult and can't hold petty grudges against films so now I have to watch them... partially so I can make other people watch films they don't want to watch in an underhanded deal on Twitter.
But I digress.
When Mia and Sebastian's lives cross unexpectedly it is impossible to know how much the future will change for both of them. What at first is a wholesome whirlwind of romance begins to fall apart as their careers progress and pull them apart.
At its heart it's a simple romance story for Mia and Sebastian as they build each other up for the lives they want and the perils that that brings, but when you add the extra depth into it all with the music it takes on a whole other dimension. As a spoiler alert for my take on the film, at one point I had to stop and I just wrote in my notes "oh god, why am I crying?!" That wasn't a feeling I had throughout the film though, in fact, straight off the bat I thought I was going to hate the film because of that opening musical number. That number made no impact on me and I was massively concerned, thankfully that didn't hold true for the next number.
On the acting... Emma Stone is glorious and should be in everything... end of review... okay, fine. I loved the way she made Mia come to life, she's fun, got some sass to her and I loved the way she behaved through her auditions. Emma Stone may be my spirit animal, I absolutely love her.
And then there's Ryan Gosling... As an indication of how I feel about him please accept this reenactment of a recent conversation:
Friend: Did you see they're talking about the new Wolfman movie?
Me: Oh my god, really?! Yay! It'll be great!
Friend: Yeah, it's going to have Ryan Gosling in it!
Me: *crickets chirp and a tumbleweed bounces past*
His acting does nothing for me. It's very much the Brad Pitt style of acting without the humour, he always acts the same way, but... I would genuinely say this is the first of his films I've seen where it felt like he was acting. I genuinely enjoyed him in it, it didn't feel like he was hiding all his emotions in a box in his dressing room. I was so thankful.
The chemistry between the pair was brilliant and that really helped carry me through the film. With lots of musical numbers and elaborate looking sets to deal with I was worried that it might end up looking more like theatre than film, it obviously does have that vibe because that's part of the idea but it flowed incredibly well.
La La Land has a wonderful feel to it with vibrant sets and costumes, it gives a glow of the old school and this works incredibly well with the jazz side of the story. This, however, is part of my main problem with the film.
You've got the golden age vibe with the colours and the music, but the modern creeps in everywhere and I wasn't a fan of this mix. Every time it popped up I noticed it and it made me frown. That being said, I don't know if it would have worked being an entirely modern film but it could easily have gone back in time and lived happily ever after.
Even with me disliking that part of the film's story I really enjoyed watching La La Land. It's stunning visually, the music is (mainly) beautiful and I was incredibly surprised by the acting. The moral of this story is don't let excessive advertising put you off something.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/la-la-land-movie-review.html
But I digress.
When Mia and Sebastian's lives cross unexpectedly it is impossible to know how much the future will change for both of them. What at first is a wholesome whirlwind of romance begins to fall apart as their careers progress and pull them apart.
At its heart it's a simple romance story for Mia and Sebastian as they build each other up for the lives they want and the perils that that brings, but when you add the extra depth into it all with the music it takes on a whole other dimension. As a spoiler alert for my take on the film, at one point I had to stop and I just wrote in my notes "oh god, why am I crying?!" That wasn't a feeling I had throughout the film though, in fact, straight off the bat I thought I was going to hate the film because of that opening musical number. That number made no impact on me and I was massively concerned, thankfully that didn't hold true for the next number.
On the acting... Emma Stone is glorious and should be in everything... end of review... okay, fine. I loved the way she made Mia come to life, she's fun, got some sass to her and I loved the way she behaved through her auditions. Emma Stone may be my spirit animal, I absolutely love her.
And then there's Ryan Gosling... As an indication of how I feel about him please accept this reenactment of a recent conversation:
Friend: Did you see they're talking about the new Wolfman movie?
Me: Oh my god, really?! Yay! It'll be great!
Friend: Yeah, it's going to have Ryan Gosling in it!
Me: *crickets chirp and a tumbleweed bounces past*
His acting does nothing for me. It's very much the Brad Pitt style of acting without the humour, he always acts the same way, but... I would genuinely say this is the first of his films I've seen where it felt like he was acting. I genuinely enjoyed him in it, it didn't feel like he was hiding all his emotions in a box in his dressing room. I was so thankful.
The chemistry between the pair was brilliant and that really helped carry me through the film. With lots of musical numbers and elaborate looking sets to deal with I was worried that it might end up looking more like theatre than film, it obviously does have that vibe because that's part of the idea but it flowed incredibly well.
La La Land has a wonderful feel to it with vibrant sets and costumes, it gives a glow of the old school and this works incredibly well with the jazz side of the story. This, however, is part of my main problem with the film.
You've got the golden age vibe with the colours and the music, but the modern creeps in everywhere and I wasn't a fan of this mix. Every time it popped up I noticed it and it made me frown. That being said, I don't know if it would have worked being an entirely modern film but it could easily have gone back in time and lived happily ever after.
Even with me disliking that part of the film's story I really enjoyed watching La La Land. It's stunning visually, the music is (mainly) beautiful and I was incredibly surprised by the acting. The moral of this story is don't let excessive advertising put you off something.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/la-la-land-movie-review.html
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Kids growing up today don’t have the experience of a true arcade like some of us old folks do. Arcades as I knew them were loud (often smoke filled) establishments lined from one end to the other with all types of video games. Arcades these days reside mainly in pizza parlors with giant animatronic mice and consist mostly of ticket giving, skill-based games like skeeball and flippy coin games. Well, we now get a little bit of a nostalgic flashback as the Disney juggernaut does it again with Ralph Breaks the Internet, a delightful story about friendship, self-confidence and of course arcade games.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Me Before You (Film Tie In)
Book
THE NEW YORK TIMES NUMBER 1 BESTSELLING NOVEL THAT IS LOVED AROUND THE WORLD, AND NOW NO 1...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
May 24, 2017
Small is an Understatement
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, Small Great Things is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are intentionally oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) Feb 10, 2021