Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Land of the Dead (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Twenty years after his last installment of the classic “Dead” zombie genre, landmark Horror writer/director George Romero has returned to the delight of fans worldwide.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I have had my issues with Spike Lee as a filmmaker over the years. It always seemed like his next film was the most “important” one, and that he didn’t make a film if it didn’t have something to say about race and the oppression of African Americans. Which in itself is not a problem, as long as that point isn’t laboured to the detriment of all other aspects of the film. My problem wasn’t the message, it was that a lot of the films were dull or just not that great.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Of Knights & Ninjas in Tabletop Games
Jan 23, 2020
Little-known factoid about me: I am a Knight. Not from England, and not due to my daring heroics in war, but a Knight Templar of the Grand Commandery in the York Rite of Freemasonry. Politics and conspiracy theories aside, becoming a Knight was a highlight of my life, and something I will forever treasure. And speaking of treasure and Knights Templar (read your history, kids), we all know that one of the biggest foes of the Knights in olden times were the nefarious Ninjas. Or maybe it’s just fun to think about and play a game where these factions are represented.
Of Knights & Ninjas is a card game about claiming enough treasure to ascend to kinghood and rule all the lands. You can accomplish this by sending forces to your opponents’ realms and stealing their glorious gems. The first lord to amass 10 gems will have sufficient wealth to assume the kinghood and rule all realms!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. If you would like to read the rulebook in full, you may visit the publisher’s website, purchase the game through the publisher, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will take five gems of their preferred color in front of them. Shuffle the large deck of cards, and deal each player four cards (this rule was updated after our play-throughs). You are now ready to play!
On your turn, you will draw two cards from the deck (unless it’s the first draw of the game – that player will draw just one). You must now play a card to the table or discard a card from your hand. Cards that you can play from your hand will each have different abilities, and thankfully the designer will be providing a reference sheet for these, as there are many cards with wildly different abilities. This is also why I will not be explaining the entire rulebook.
Typically you will be able to play Fortify cards (castles, archers), Attack cards (knights, ninjas, etc), Respond cards, and Special cards (minstrels, jesters, etc). Fortify cards protect your gems from certain Attack cards, like an Archer only being able to attack another Archer, or a Dragon being able to attack a Castle – but not if an Archer is stationed there (logic). Although, a Ninja can scale a Castle wall, and a Catapult can destroy a Castle altogether (but not that pesky Archer that happens to be sitting on top)…
Attack cards are just that: they Attack. Each Attack card will show a number in a starburst icon in the upper right hand corner that signifies how many gems they are able to steal. Once an opponent is declared and an Attack card played, let’s say a 1-power Peasant, the defender may then play a card with the Respond keyword (which will also have a starburst number) to offset the number of stolen gems. If the attacker chooses, they may continue playing Attack cards against the same opponent in order to draw out all the Respond cards and come away with some sweet, sweet gems.
But maybe once all is said and done, and gems are about to change hands, another opponent plays a Special card – a Highwayman, for example. These characters will steal all the gems that are about to change hands (as if he was robbing the gem carriage en route to the new owner). But then again, perhaps yet ANOTHER opponent plays a Highwayman as well, and steals those gems a second time! You just never know when these Special cards will come out and how they may affect the best laid plans.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has amassed the 10 gems they require to win the game!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, and we understand that components can change during the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a ton of cards and some plastic gem pieces. The art is stellar – cartoony, but whimsical and fun. The card layouts make sense and are very easy to read and understand. The gems are colorful and fun to play with. I only have one concern/suggestion/wish for the components here. I wish the individual card’s abilities were somehow printed on the cards themselves. That would alleviate the need for a reference sheet, but it would then detract from the cute art on the cards. So, maybe that wouldn’t be so great after all. I’m torn on that.
All in all, this game is super fun to play. It will be chaotic one moment, and strategically tense the next. Being able to whittle an opponent’s hand down to nothing and then slapping them with a King card to steal a huge chunk of gems is just so sneakily satisfying. Or sending your Ninja to infiltrate their unArchered (I know it’s not a word) Castle and slither away with the goods. Don’t get too attached to your gems, because you may find yourself without for several rounds. You can always rebuild, but make haste as your opponents will keep you down if you let them.
If you are a fan of games that are cute, fun, and relatively quick with a quirky, but light-hearted theme, then definitely check this one out.
Of Knights & Ninjas is a card game about claiming enough treasure to ascend to kinghood and rule all the lands. You can accomplish this by sending forces to your opponents’ realms and stealing their glorious gems. The first lord to amass 10 gems will have sufficient wealth to assume the kinghood and rule all realms!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. If you would like to read the rulebook in full, you may visit the publisher’s website, purchase the game through the publisher, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will take five gems of their preferred color in front of them. Shuffle the large deck of cards, and deal each player four cards (this rule was updated after our play-throughs). You are now ready to play!
On your turn, you will draw two cards from the deck (unless it’s the first draw of the game – that player will draw just one). You must now play a card to the table or discard a card from your hand. Cards that you can play from your hand will each have different abilities, and thankfully the designer will be providing a reference sheet for these, as there are many cards with wildly different abilities. This is also why I will not be explaining the entire rulebook.
Typically you will be able to play Fortify cards (castles, archers), Attack cards (knights, ninjas, etc), Respond cards, and Special cards (minstrels, jesters, etc). Fortify cards protect your gems from certain Attack cards, like an Archer only being able to attack another Archer, or a Dragon being able to attack a Castle – but not if an Archer is stationed there (logic). Although, a Ninja can scale a Castle wall, and a Catapult can destroy a Castle altogether (but not that pesky Archer that happens to be sitting on top)…
Attack cards are just that: they Attack. Each Attack card will show a number in a starburst icon in the upper right hand corner that signifies how many gems they are able to steal. Once an opponent is declared and an Attack card played, let’s say a 1-power Peasant, the defender may then play a card with the Respond keyword (which will also have a starburst number) to offset the number of stolen gems. If the attacker chooses, they may continue playing Attack cards against the same opponent in order to draw out all the Respond cards and come away with some sweet, sweet gems.
But maybe once all is said and done, and gems are about to change hands, another opponent plays a Special card – a Highwayman, for example. These characters will steal all the gems that are about to change hands (as if he was robbing the gem carriage en route to the new owner). But then again, perhaps yet ANOTHER opponent plays a Highwayman as well, and steals those gems a second time! You just never know when these Special cards will come out and how they may affect the best laid plans.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has amassed the 10 gems they require to win the game!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, and we understand that components can change during the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a ton of cards and some plastic gem pieces. The art is stellar – cartoony, but whimsical and fun. The card layouts make sense and are very easy to read and understand. The gems are colorful and fun to play with. I only have one concern/suggestion/wish for the components here. I wish the individual card’s abilities were somehow printed on the cards themselves. That would alleviate the need for a reference sheet, but it would then detract from the cute art on the cards. So, maybe that wouldn’t be so great after all. I’m torn on that.
All in all, this game is super fun to play. It will be chaotic one moment, and strategically tense the next. Being able to whittle an opponent’s hand down to nothing and then slapping them with a King card to steal a huge chunk of gems is just so sneakily satisfying. Or sending your Ninja to infiltrate their unArchered (I know it’s not a word) Castle and slither away with the goods. Don’t get too attached to your gems, because you may find yourself without for several rounds. You can always rebuild, but make haste as your opponents will keep you down if you let them.
If you are a fan of games that are cute, fun, and relatively quick with a quirky, but light-hearted theme, then definitely check this one out.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Old Guard (2020) in Movies
Aug 27, 2020
Kick Ass Action (2 more)
Good Casting and Supporting Actors/Characters
Cool Concept
The Musical Score/ Soundtrack (3 more)
Some characters were a little cliché
Characters not fully developed or given enough backstory
Dialogue
In With The Old Guard (7/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Old Guard is 2020 action movie directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood and written by Greg Rucka, The film was produced by Skydance Media, Denver and Delilah Productions and Marc Evans Productions and distributed by Netflix. Producers on the movie include David Ellison, Dana Goldberg, Don Granger, Charlize Theron, AJ Dix, Beth Kono and Marc Evans. The film stars Charlize Theron, Kiki Layne, Marwan Kenzari, Luca Marinelli and Matthias Schoenaerts.
Andy (Charlize Theron), and her covert group of tight-knit immortals have fought and protected the mortal world for centuries with their mysterious inability to die. With their extraordinary abilities suddenly exposed on an emergency mission, the group finds themselves hunted by those who will stop at nothing to replicate their power. Nile (Kiki Layne), the newest soldier, joins their ranks, to help the group eliminate the threat and avoid capture as they find out who's found them.
This move was pretty bad ass. I liked it quite a bit. Charlize Theron definitely kicks ass as Andy in this flick and has a bunch of really cool action sequences throughout the film. The supporting cast was really good as well. I hadn't heard of the graphic novel or comic that it was based off of by the film's writer Greg Rucka but now I really want to check it out because the backstory they give the characters and their actions seem really cool. Now I know a lot of people give the whole girl power thing bad energy online and a lot of stuff gets hate and trolls for stuff like that but I dig this film. (examples Captain Marvel, The girl power scene in Endgame, etc...) I definitely got that vibe that the director was a woman without even paying attention to it in the opening credits and that's not a bad thing, just an observation. The way certain things happened in the movie, the soundtrack (which was good but felt like it didn't match) and the two main characters/protagonists are female as well. I think Gina Prince-Bythewood did a great job in mixing in the story and the action in this movie. Of course when coming up with a cool concept like this there always going to be plot holes or things that don't make sense and this movie is no exception, some characters are a little cliché but there acting pretty good and their performances were good but the dialogue definitely suffered from the writing. There was some weird lines in there and some scenes that just kind of faltered. The villain wasn't that memorable and the film had some slow places, not that pacing was off but maybe dragged on a little too long. I think this movie was still great good though and if you're looking for a good action flick to check out you should definitely give it a try, I give it a 7/10.
Spoiler Section Review:
Man, I have seen this movie getting ripped on reviews online and a lot of it is actually on the soundtrack. Now I understand completely, to me the song choices were off for the mood or tone of the film from the beginning but I saw what "they" were going for because all the songs had a similar theme which was connected by women. It was one of the reasons I felt like the movie was directed by a woman before I looked it up. Now I didn't hate the music, I actually liked some of the songs but for some people I can understand how it distracts, how it lessens in a way the impact of the cinematography and graphic violence of the film. Also the plot holes and logic when it comes to cool concept like the one for this movie. Like when they heal, the bullets get pushed out of their body, but what about Andy's earrings? That's literally the only example of plot holes I've found in other reviews, but every review hating on it says that. Other people hated on it's "woke politics" whatever that means and cheap and lacking in most places. I'll admit that they dropped the ball on putting in decent enough backstory for the characters who were supposed to have live for hundreds of years. You would think they would have some good flashback scenes but they only show a couple and some are weird and blurry sometimes. They just really dropped the ball on developing the characters more or giving you a reason to like them or care about them. They're were the two gay guys but for some people that is a little cliché already because everyone movie is trying to be inclusive now so it comes off as unoriginal. I'll admit that Kiki Layne's performance could be better in certain scenes especially in the beginning some of the girl soldiers didn't seem like "real soldiers" whatever that means, lol. but didn't look the part or act the part. And even at the end her character totally just shifts into kill mode when the whole time she couldn't get over the first person she killed and we're supposed to believe that she believes in the cause the fight for now. I mean she has some good scenes too though. There's just a lot of convenience or hand of god ("deus ex machina") throughout the movie. It's hard for me to give this a higher score when some of the points against it are legitimate but I think some of them are just haters. Anyways I give this movie a 7/10 and I for one personally can't wait for the sequel.
Andy (Charlize Theron), and her covert group of tight-knit immortals have fought and protected the mortal world for centuries with their mysterious inability to die. With their extraordinary abilities suddenly exposed on an emergency mission, the group finds themselves hunted by those who will stop at nothing to replicate their power. Nile (Kiki Layne), the newest soldier, joins their ranks, to help the group eliminate the threat and avoid capture as they find out who's found them.
This move was pretty bad ass. I liked it quite a bit. Charlize Theron definitely kicks ass as Andy in this flick and has a bunch of really cool action sequences throughout the film. The supporting cast was really good as well. I hadn't heard of the graphic novel or comic that it was based off of by the film's writer Greg Rucka but now I really want to check it out because the backstory they give the characters and their actions seem really cool. Now I know a lot of people give the whole girl power thing bad energy online and a lot of stuff gets hate and trolls for stuff like that but I dig this film. (examples Captain Marvel, The girl power scene in Endgame, etc...) I definitely got that vibe that the director was a woman without even paying attention to it in the opening credits and that's not a bad thing, just an observation. The way certain things happened in the movie, the soundtrack (which was good but felt like it didn't match) and the two main characters/protagonists are female as well. I think Gina Prince-Bythewood did a great job in mixing in the story and the action in this movie. Of course when coming up with a cool concept like this there always going to be plot holes or things that don't make sense and this movie is no exception, some characters are a little cliché but there acting pretty good and their performances were good but the dialogue definitely suffered from the writing. There was some weird lines in there and some scenes that just kind of faltered. The villain wasn't that memorable and the film had some slow places, not that pacing was off but maybe dragged on a little too long. I think this movie was still great good though and if you're looking for a good action flick to check out you should definitely give it a try, I give it a 7/10.
Spoiler Section Review:
Man, I have seen this movie getting ripped on reviews online and a lot of it is actually on the soundtrack. Now I understand completely, to me the song choices were off for the mood or tone of the film from the beginning but I saw what "they" were going for because all the songs had a similar theme which was connected by women. It was one of the reasons I felt like the movie was directed by a woman before I looked it up. Now I didn't hate the music, I actually liked some of the songs but for some people I can understand how it distracts, how it lessens in a way the impact of the cinematography and graphic violence of the film. Also the plot holes and logic when it comes to cool concept like the one for this movie. Like when they heal, the bullets get pushed out of their body, but what about Andy's earrings? That's literally the only example of plot holes I've found in other reviews, but every review hating on it says that. Other people hated on it's "woke politics" whatever that means and cheap and lacking in most places. I'll admit that they dropped the ball on putting in decent enough backstory for the characters who were supposed to have live for hundreds of years. You would think they would have some good flashback scenes but they only show a couple and some are weird and blurry sometimes. They just really dropped the ball on developing the characters more or giving you a reason to like them or care about them. They're were the two gay guys but for some people that is a little cliché already because everyone movie is trying to be inclusive now so it comes off as unoriginal. I'll admit that Kiki Layne's performance could be better in certain scenes especially in the beginning some of the girl soldiers didn't seem like "real soldiers" whatever that means, lol. but didn't look the part or act the part. And even at the end her character totally just shifts into kill mode when the whole time she couldn't get over the first person she killed and we're supposed to believe that she believes in the cause the fight for now. I mean she has some good scenes too though. There's just a lot of convenience or hand of god ("deus ex machina") throughout the movie. It's hard for me to give this a higher score when some of the points against it are legitimate but I think some of them are just haters. Anyways I give this movie a 7/10 and I for one personally can't wait for the sequel.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated As Old As Time in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
I’m going to come right out and say (although you will probably be able to tell if you make it to the end of this blog) that this is, so far, my favourite book in the twisted tale series. Seriously, this is the second time I have read it and I loved it just as much as the first time. I got just as engrossed in the story and I seriously think Liz Braswell and I could be best friends!
As Old As Time is the retelling of Beauty and the Beast and opens with the familiar story of the enchantress and the young, vain prince that we all know. You can probably still picture the stained-glass scene from the original 1991 movie and the dramatic ballroom scene in the 2017 remake.
Refusing to be eclipsed by these though, Braswell follows the well-known tale with: “It was a very good story. It often entertained the woman who lay in her black hole of a room, manacled to a hard, cold bed.”
Wait! What?
There, with one fell swoop, on the second page, Braswell brings an almost gothic darkness to the fairy tale. Of course, some would say it is already dark: very few people who are cursed to become a beast are particularly jolly about the situation! However, Braswell goes one step further by both revealing the story behind the enchantress and taking us on a journey to discover the ugly truth in the present.
Liz Braswell creates a kingdom where magic and non-magic people have lived together peacefully for years but where politics and a lack of cultural understanding is threatening to tear that apart as les charmantes find themselves persecuted by les naturels. (I can’t imagine where she draws her inspiration from(!))
It is in this kingdom that we meet a young dreamer called Maurice and the enchantress Rosalind, Belle’s mother (nicknamed Rose- so clever!). Maurice is very much a younger version of the character we grew up with: loveable and devoted to his inventions. Rosalind however is much more headstrong and impulsive: even changing her appearance on a whim. Her pride is fierce and we first meet her holding her own against a large man insulting ‘her kind’, calling her unnatural and a child of the devil. The bully soon learns the error of his ways when his nose is replaced by a pig’s snout but a warning runs all the way through this tale: “magic always comes back on itself”.
Maurice and Rosalind’s life is happy and settled at first but they soon start to witness the persecution of les charmantes for themselves. Thus, when the King and Queen call on Rosalind to protect them against the advancing plague, she passionately fights for her people…only to be rejected and turned away. Maurice, always the voice of reason, convinces Rosalind to at least protect the children and servants and so it comes to pass that Rosalind later visits the young prince, on the eve of his coronation, carrying with her the simple gift of a rose.
Braswell’s character development is, as always, impressive. Belle is immediately relatable as the kooky bookworm we know and love: her story running parallel to the film until we, as readers, develop a relationship with her parents. It is then that we discover there is a slight edge to Belle. Although clearly tortured by the fact her mother cursed a 10-year-old boy, Braswell’s Belle is desperate to be adventurous and heroic like the characters in her books but soon realises an adventure is not all it is cracked up to be. Like her mother, Belle can be quite impulsive: grabbing the enchanted rose before the beast can stop her and destroying any chance of breaking the spell. However, she is also quick and cunning, tricking the wardrobe into revealing the curse’s timeline. Nevertheless, the bravery of our protagonist can never be doubted and Belle embarks on one hell of a journey to discover the truth about her family and herself.
Uniquely, within As Old As Time we slowly see side-line characters weave their way into the lives and stories of our characters. Levi and Alaric, for example, are old friends of Maurice and Rosalind and are seemingly insignificant to the story at first. However, Levi is also the godfather to Belle and the village bookseller (“If you like it that much, it’s yours!” – that guy). Alaric on the other hand has a significant link to the castle and both carry clues with them that assist Belle on her quest.
Any Beauty and the Beast tale would not be complete without LeFou and Gaston – that infamous double act- but even Gaston is ever so slightly darker than his animated counterpart. Frederic: another friend from the past and, quite frankly, odd from the start also plays a pivotal role in the story but I won’t spoil the surprise for you!
As Old As Time is true to its name: weaving two stories into its plot at different points in time: the story that we all know and the story of how that came to be. It is an ominous tale with curses, murder, creepy ivy statues and a frankly terrifying tour of the lunatic asylum.
It is not all doom and gloom however; Liz Braswell takes a very tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the infamous scenes within Beauty and the Beast: invoking a dry sense of humour into the story. From a chapter named “Be Our … Oh You Know the Rest” to a direct reference to Stockholm Syndrome: Braswell makes sure that we do not expect her novel to be a copycat, heartfelt tale with a happy ending. Belle even remarks to the Beast that hoping she would fall in love with him within a month or so was wildly unrealistic.
This is very much a novel for the cynical Disney lovers amongst us and highly deserving of its title of a twisted tale!
As Old As Time is the retelling of Beauty and the Beast and opens with the familiar story of the enchantress and the young, vain prince that we all know. You can probably still picture the stained-glass scene from the original 1991 movie and the dramatic ballroom scene in the 2017 remake.
Refusing to be eclipsed by these though, Braswell follows the well-known tale with: “It was a very good story. It often entertained the woman who lay in her black hole of a room, manacled to a hard, cold bed.”
Wait! What?
There, with one fell swoop, on the second page, Braswell brings an almost gothic darkness to the fairy tale. Of course, some would say it is already dark: very few people who are cursed to become a beast are particularly jolly about the situation! However, Braswell goes one step further by both revealing the story behind the enchantress and taking us on a journey to discover the ugly truth in the present.
Liz Braswell creates a kingdom where magic and non-magic people have lived together peacefully for years but where politics and a lack of cultural understanding is threatening to tear that apart as les charmantes find themselves persecuted by les naturels. (I can’t imagine where she draws her inspiration from(!))
It is in this kingdom that we meet a young dreamer called Maurice and the enchantress Rosalind, Belle’s mother (nicknamed Rose- so clever!). Maurice is very much a younger version of the character we grew up with: loveable and devoted to his inventions. Rosalind however is much more headstrong and impulsive: even changing her appearance on a whim. Her pride is fierce and we first meet her holding her own against a large man insulting ‘her kind’, calling her unnatural and a child of the devil. The bully soon learns the error of his ways when his nose is replaced by a pig’s snout but a warning runs all the way through this tale: “magic always comes back on itself”.
Maurice and Rosalind’s life is happy and settled at first but they soon start to witness the persecution of les charmantes for themselves. Thus, when the King and Queen call on Rosalind to protect them against the advancing plague, she passionately fights for her people…only to be rejected and turned away. Maurice, always the voice of reason, convinces Rosalind to at least protect the children and servants and so it comes to pass that Rosalind later visits the young prince, on the eve of his coronation, carrying with her the simple gift of a rose.
Braswell’s character development is, as always, impressive. Belle is immediately relatable as the kooky bookworm we know and love: her story running parallel to the film until we, as readers, develop a relationship with her parents. It is then that we discover there is a slight edge to Belle. Although clearly tortured by the fact her mother cursed a 10-year-old boy, Braswell’s Belle is desperate to be adventurous and heroic like the characters in her books but soon realises an adventure is not all it is cracked up to be. Like her mother, Belle can be quite impulsive: grabbing the enchanted rose before the beast can stop her and destroying any chance of breaking the spell. However, she is also quick and cunning, tricking the wardrobe into revealing the curse’s timeline. Nevertheless, the bravery of our protagonist can never be doubted and Belle embarks on one hell of a journey to discover the truth about her family and herself.
Uniquely, within As Old As Time we slowly see side-line characters weave their way into the lives and stories of our characters. Levi and Alaric, for example, are old friends of Maurice and Rosalind and are seemingly insignificant to the story at first. However, Levi is also the godfather to Belle and the village bookseller (“If you like it that much, it’s yours!” – that guy). Alaric on the other hand has a significant link to the castle and both carry clues with them that assist Belle on her quest.
Any Beauty and the Beast tale would not be complete without LeFou and Gaston – that infamous double act- but even Gaston is ever so slightly darker than his animated counterpart. Frederic: another friend from the past and, quite frankly, odd from the start also plays a pivotal role in the story but I won’t spoil the surprise for you!
As Old As Time is true to its name: weaving two stories into its plot at different points in time: the story that we all know and the story of how that came to be. It is an ominous tale with curses, murder, creepy ivy statues and a frankly terrifying tour of the lunatic asylum.
It is not all doom and gloom however; Liz Braswell takes a very tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the infamous scenes within Beauty and the Beast: invoking a dry sense of humour into the story. From a chapter named “Be Our … Oh You Know the Rest” to a direct reference to Stockholm Syndrome: Braswell makes sure that we do not expect her novel to be a copycat, heartfelt tale with a happy ending. Belle even remarks to the Beast that hoping she would fall in love with him within a month or so was wildly unrealistic.
This is very much a novel for the cynical Disney lovers amongst us and highly deserving of its title of a twisted tale!
Bill & Hillary : So This Is That Thing Called Love
Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince
Book
On the campus of Yale University, in 1970, an "odd couple," Hillary Rodham and Bill ("Bubba")...
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.