Search
The Economist Espresso
News
App
• A morning briefing from the editors of The Economist • Brand new content delivered 6 days a...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Coupon Keeper 2
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Coupon Scanner, Organizer and Reminder, this All-in-One coupon tracking app will make your life...
Retale - Weekly Ads & Coupons
Shopping and Catalogs
App
Find the best deals and coupons in your area! Retale lets you view hundreds of digital weekly ads...
The Guardian daily edition
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
The Guardian and Observer daily edition beautifully re-imagines the newspaper for the iPad. Each...
Snap2PDF - Scan Documents & Share Searchable PDF
Business and Productivity
App
* The Best Document Management App * • Snap2PDF secured a spot among the Top 10 apps in the...
In Sight - Norway+ (with offline maps)
Travel and Navigation
App
What is the name of the mountain you can see in the distance? What are the lakes you see in front of...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Siren of Depravity in Books
May 16, 2018
The idea of a story about a dark, tormented, and dysfunctional family with Lovecraftian undertones is definitely something I'm interested in; however, I can't help but feel a bit disappointed at the execution.
Written in first person perspective, Siren of Depravity is narrated by the main character, Harry Keyes. Harry is anything but the perfect husband: he's cheated on his wife and has a habit of lying to her. His pride and joy is his little girl, Eva. Harry also has a brother, Dexter, who just found out that he's actually adopted: they have different mothers.Coming from abusive childhoods, the two are haunted by their monster of a father. While Harry grew up, married, and found a career, Dexter bought the family house from his parents and became a bit of a recluse, burying himself in necromantic studies. The other characters, including Harry's wife and child, are largely minor characters until the end and, while most of them are fairly flat and static, Eva appears to be the only one that undergoes any sort of change.
Upon discovering the nature of his maternity, Dexter calls his brother up on the telephone for the first time in ages, divulging to Harry that he has discovered something that he absolutely must show him. Naturally, Harry casts aside all reason to travel two hours to visit his brother and learn what he has discovered, despite knowing how dark Dexter's interests are. It is at this point that Siren of Depravity starts hinting at old and terrible creatures that are inspired by Lovecraft, suggesting that they are buried deep underground. Dumbfounded by the knowledge that Dexter has a different mother, Harry takes it upon himself to solve the mystery and thus readers are led on a journey filled to the brim with horror after horror, from necromancy to human experimentation, Fry doesn't hold back on the grisly details that define the Keyes family's past.
Though the book begins a bit slowly, the action is nonstop and picks up speed further along. Fry has a knack for painting gruesome images with his words; however, I feel that his writing style would be better suited in third person, rather than first. Harry's perspective seems to be a bit heavily diluted by his own personal regrets, and the constant mention of his affair and of being swatted with a newspaper by his father throughout the book really takes away from many of the scenes. What bothered me more than how repetitive these moments were, was the constant beginning of a sentence with the word "but." "But" is a conjunction, and as such is meant to connect two thoughts. Many of the instances in which it was used, the word could have been omitted entirely, which would have helped the flow of the story. Instead, it gives the book a bit of a jerky feeling. Hopefully this will be addressed before publication.
I would like to thank NetGalley, DarkFuse, and Gary Fry for the advance review copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
Written in first person perspective, Siren of Depravity is narrated by the main character, Harry Keyes. Harry is anything but the perfect husband: he's cheated on his wife and has a habit of lying to her. His pride and joy is his little girl, Eva. Harry also has a brother, Dexter, who just found out that he's actually adopted: they have different mothers.Coming from abusive childhoods, the two are haunted by their monster of a father. While Harry grew up, married, and found a career, Dexter bought the family house from his parents and became a bit of a recluse, burying himself in necromantic studies. The other characters, including Harry's wife and child, are largely minor characters until the end and, while most of them are fairly flat and static, Eva appears to be the only one that undergoes any sort of change.
Upon discovering the nature of his maternity, Dexter calls his brother up on the telephone for the first time in ages, divulging to Harry that he has discovered something that he absolutely must show him. Naturally, Harry casts aside all reason to travel two hours to visit his brother and learn what he has discovered, despite knowing how dark Dexter's interests are. It is at this point that Siren of Depravity starts hinting at old and terrible creatures that are inspired by Lovecraft, suggesting that they are buried deep underground. Dumbfounded by the knowledge that Dexter has a different mother, Harry takes it upon himself to solve the mystery and thus readers are led on a journey filled to the brim with horror after horror, from necromancy to human experimentation, Fry doesn't hold back on the grisly details that define the Keyes family's past.
Though the book begins a bit slowly, the action is nonstop and picks up speed further along. Fry has a knack for painting gruesome images with his words; however, I feel that his writing style would be better suited in third person, rather than first. Harry's perspective seems to be a bit heavily diluted by his own personal regrets, and the constant mention of his affair and of being swatted with a newspaper by his father throughout the book really takes away from many of the scenes. What bothered me more than how repetitive these moments were, was the constant beginning of a sentence with the word "but." "But" is a conjunction, and as such is meant to connect two thoughts. Many of the instances in which it was used, the word could have been omitted entirely, which would have helped the flow of the story. Instead, it gives the book a bit of a jerky feeling. Hopefully this will be addressed before publication.
I would like to thank NetGalley, DarkFuse, and Gary Fry for the advance review copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated Enclave in Books
Aug 14, 2018
Book Review by Cari Mayhew. Rating 6/10.
Set in a post-apocalyptic world, this book is a cross between Lord of the Flies, and City of Embers. You know you’re reading a YA novel when it starts with a coming-of-age ritual, and all the characters are under 25 years old.
The central character, Deuce, is a 15 year old young lady who grew up in an underground enclave, who has trained all her life to catch food to eat and protect the rest of the enclave from sharp-toothed zombie-like creatures (AKA Freaks) who also live underground.
The power within the enclave is held by a minority few and they operate by hard and fast rules. Everyone is designated their own purpose when they come of age. Deuce’s role is “Huntress” and other roles include “Builder” for those who make the items needed by the enclave, and “Breeder” for those who lack the skills to be put to any other use.
The enclave motto is “The Strong Survive” and the unspoken implication is that the weak are not valued. Any random object found by the members has to be declared to the elders and kept by the Wordkeeper. Hoarding is punishable by death. The enclave’s beliefs and way of life are all that Deuce has ever known.
Shortly after her naming ceremony and teaming up with Fade to carry out patrols, Deuce starts to see the set-up for the cold way of life that it is. One thing leads to another and the 2 of them are exiled. And so, the second half of the book continues above ground, where they face a different set of challenges.
In the beginning of the book, the descriptions of the fights with the Freaks are detailed, but this soon changes (which I was glad of, as that would have put me off the rest of the book).
The story is fast-paced and I didn’t get bored, but, as you may expect in a post-apocalyptic world, much of the story revolves around fighting zombies, finding food to eat, and water with which to drink and wash. So it felt repetitive in places.
There is a barely-there slow burn romance between Deuce and her “partner” Fade. They have each other’s back when fighting the mutants, and when Deuce got exiled from the enclave, but there’s little in the way of desire for each other.
At one point, the book seemed to form the beginning of a mystery novel, as Deuce and Fade tried to piece together how the world had got this way, but when a yellowing newspaper revealed an old story, there seemed nothing mysterious about the state of affairs.
This book is the first in the 3-book series, Razorland. Strangely the first book doesn’t really end in a cliff-hanger, so I didn’t feel compelled to read the next one. Although I’d imagine some of the earlier characters will re-appear. To be honest, I felt the story so far is unimaginative, but that’s not to say the rest of the series is the same.
Set in a post-apocalyptic world, this book is a cross between Lord of the Flies, and City of Embers. You know you’re reading a YA novel when it starts with a coming-of-age ritual, and all the characters are under 25 years old.
The central character, Deuce, is a 15 year old young lady who grew up in an underground enclave, who has trained all her life to catch food to eat and protect the rest of the enclave from sharp-toothed zombie-like creatures (AKA Freaks) who also live underground.
The power within the enclave is held by a minority few and they operate by hard and fast rules. Everyone is designated their own purpose when they come of age. Deuce’s role is “Huntress” and other roles include “Builder” for those who make the items needed by the enclave, and “Breeder” for those who lack the skills to be put to any other use.
The enclave motto is “The Strong Survive” and the unspoken implication is that the weak are not valued. Any random object found by the members has to be declared to the elders and kept by the Wordkeeper. Hoarding is punishable by death. The enclave’s beliefs and way of life are all that Deuce has ever known.
Shortly after her naming ceremony and teaming up with Fade to carry out patrols, Deuce starts to see the set-up for the cold way of life that it is. One thing leads to another and the 2 of them are exiled. And so, the second half of the book continues above ground, where they face a different set of challenges.
In the beginning of the book, the descriptions of the fights with the Freaks are detailed, but this soon changes (which I was glad of, as that would have put me off the rest of the book).
The story is fast-paced and I didn’t get bored, but, as you may expect in a post-apocalyptic world, much of the story revolves around fighting zombies, finding food to eat, and water with which to drink and wash. So it felt repetitive in places.
There is a barely-there slow burn romance between Deuce and her “partner” Fade. They have each other’s back when fighting the mutants, and when Deuce got exiled from the enclave, but there’s little in the way of desire for each other.
At one point, the book seemed to form the beginning of a mystery novel, as Deuce and Fade tried to piece together how the world had got this way, but when a yellowing newspaper revealed an old story, there seemed nothing mysterious about the state of affairs.
This book is the first in the 3-book series, Razorland. Strangely the first book doesn’t really end in a cliff-hanger, so I didn’t feel compelled to read the next one. Although I’d imagine some of the earlier characters will re-appear. To be honest, I felt the story so far is unimaginative, but that’s not to say the rest of the series is the same.