Search
Search results
Photography Week: the weekly digital camera mag
Photo & Video and Magazines & Newspapers
App
***FREE 30-DAY SUBSCRIPTION TRIAL – GET OUR LATEST ISSUE FREE TODAY!*** Photography Week is a new...
Pocket Kamasutra - Sex Positions and Love Guide
Catalogs and Book
App
Do you like sex? Do you want to be better at it? Then you’ve come to the right place! Pocket...
Pocket Kamasutra - Sex Positions, Love Guide Lite
Catalogs and Book
App
Do you like sex? Do you want to be better at it? Then you’ve come to the right place! Pocket...
ViaMichelin GPS, Route Planner
Navigation and Lifestyle
App
Discover all the ViaMichelin experience and know-how at the heart of its free application (no...
Handy Photo
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
***** “What does it do? Everything… quickly and easily. It’s really awesome!“ – Life In...
Blinkist - Always Learning
Education and Book
App
Where do the world’s smartest people get their ideas? From great books! Blinkist distills the key...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Charmed & Dangerous
10.0
Rate It
Book
Magic takes many forms. From malignant hexes to love charms gone amok, you’ll find a vast array of...
Urban Fantasy Paranormal MM Romance
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Dead Perfect in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Shannah is going to die. She has a blood disease that none of the doctors can identify, and she only has months to live. She’s on her last month, possibly her last week… she hates to think it’s her last day, but it sure feels like it. She has been watching the strange tall, dark (and hansom) man for several months, and is convinced that he is a vampire (though she’s not exactly sane when she makes that decision). She goes to him seeking immortality, but collapses in near death on his front porch. When she wakes up, she feels better. What did he do that healed her? She’s not a vampire, but even the doctors couldn’t heal her… then there’s the fact that she’s pretty sure that she’s falling in love with him. but Ronan’s healing doesn’t last forever… and Shannah has to make a hard choice.
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sanctuary in Books
Apr 27, 2018
rating: 3.8/5
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.