Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Princess Doll House Games: Design and Decorate Your Own Fantasy Castle for Kids and Girls
Lifestyle and Games
App
▶▶▶ Start your own kingdom with a princess castle in new free house design games! ◀◀◀ *...
The Room
Games
9.0
Rate It
App
Welcome to The Room, a physical puzzler, wrapped in a mystery game, inside a beautifully tactile 3D...
The room Puzzle Puzzler Atmospheric Clever games
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
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Long Mars in Books
Nov 20, 2019
The third book in the Long Earth series by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter very much carries on with 'more of the same' as the previous books. Therefore if you haven't liked the series up until now, you probably won't like this installment.
The usual characters are here. Lobsang is less in evidence than previously, despite driving what is the core of the book. Joshua is also a little sidelined as his story is tied closely to that of Lobsang. The bulk of the actual pages are concerned with Sally Lindsay and Maggie Kaufmann as they set off on their own voyages of discovery on the seemingly infinite copies of Earth and - not too much of a spoiler since it's in the title - Mars.
Whereas the previous books have essentially had one thread of a story around which the characters revolve towards some sort of end. This book seems more as if the authors couldn't really decide what they wanted to write about.
Should they write about more versions of the Long Earth, more fantastic worlds and lifeforms? Or perhaps investigate what has really been happening at Happy Landings, the seemingly too perfect town which existed long before Step Day? Or perhaps you are Stephen Baxter and can't resist going to Mars and showing many stepwise possibilities for that planet?
Rather than focus on one of these, all three are covered.
Maggie Kaufmann takes a brand new Twain far beyond the current limits of exploration into completely uncharted - and very strange - worlds. She must deal with the crew during their long trip, a surprise guest and aims to find out what happened to a previous expedition that vanished. Once again Pratchett and Baxter dig up some potentially different outcomes for both life on Earth and the planet itself, although many of the worlds are skimmed over and this part does get a little repetitive - another world, another odd ecology. This thread did feel a little like filler, there for those who want to see what might happen at the extremes of the Long Earth, although events do tie in with Lobsang's story.
Lobsang (the omnipresent super computer) has become concerned with matters of existence and what might come after. In particular is the human race evolving? He asks Joshua to help out and discover if there is any evidence for a breed of super human evolving as Lobsang theorises there must be. It seemed to me this is the real story of the book, a query on what would happen if a vastly more intelligent form of humanity evolved as a step change rather than a gradual one. What would they do? Would the rest of humanity accept them or feel threatened by them? The thread is short - barely more than an essay - and takes a good while to work through but provides the ultimate ending to the book.
Meanwhile, Sally Lindsay finds herself at The Gap, preparing to visit Mars, part of some mysterious quest for 'something' by her father. Here Baxter's history of writing Mars colonisation stories (they even get a mention) comes to the fore as the possibilities of a Long Mars are explored. In the real world Mars is cold, arid and inhospitable but there may be the odd chance for life to have developed. What would this be like? Again we have many different worlds although these are skipped through a little better than the Maggie Kaufmann Long Earth voyage and seem a little less repetitive - or where there is repetition it is more interesting than mundane.
Overall this is a good read in the series, probably a little better than The Long War but again lacking the coherence and sheer enthusiasm of The Long Earth (perhaps inevitably). As a work of science fiction it works well - the broad brush 'imaginary worlds' of the Long Earth and the Long Mars juxtaposed by the more existential investigation into human evolution.
Would I read a fourth installment? Undoubtedly, there are stories yet to be told. Would I recommend this book? Only if the recommendee had enjoyed the previous two books.
The usual characters are here. Lobsang is less in evidence than previously, despite driving what is the core of the book. Joshua is also a little sidelined as his story is tied closely to that of Lobsang. The bulk of the actual pages are concerned with Sally Lindsay and Maggie Kaufmann as they set off on their own voyages of discovery on the seemingly infinite copies of Earth and - not too much of a spoiler since it's in the title - Mars.
Whereas the previous books have essentially had one thread of a story around which the characters revolve towards some sort of end. This book seems more as if the authors couldn't really decide what they wanted to write about.
Should they write about more versions of the Long Earth, more fantastic worlds and lifeforms? Or perhaps investigate what has really been happening at Happy Landings, the seemingly too perfect town which existed long before Step Day? Or perhaps you are Stephen Baxter and can't resist going to Mars and showing many stepwise possibilities for that planet?
Rather than focus on one of these, all three are covered.
Maggie Kaufmann takes a brand new Twain far beyond the current limits of exploration into completely uncharted - and very strange - worlds. She must deal with the crew during their long trip, a surprise guest and aims to find out what happened to a previous expedition that vanished. Once again Pratchett and Baxter dig up some potentially different outcomes for both life on Earth and the planet itself, although many of the worlds are skimmed over and this part does get a little repetitive - another world, another odd ecology. This thread did feel a little like filler, there for those who want to see what might happen at the extremes of the Long Earth, although events do tie in with Lobsang's story.
Lobsang (the omnipresent super computer) has become concerned with matters of existence and what might come after. In particular is the human race evolving? He asks Joshua to help out and discover if there is any evidence for a breed of super human evolving as Lobsang theorises there must be. It seemed to me this is the real story of the book, a query on what would happen if a vastly more intelligent form of humanity evolved as a step change rather than a gradual one. What would they do? Would the rest of humanity accept them or feel threatened by them? The thread is short - barely more than an essay - and takes a good while to work through but provides the ultimate ending to the book.
Meanwhile, Sally Lindsay finds herself at The Gap, preparing to visit Mars, part of some mysterious quest for 'something' by her father. Here Baxter's history of writing Mars colonisation stories (they even get a mention) comes to the fore as the possibilities of a Long Mars are explored. In the real world Mars is cold, arid and inhospitable but there may be the odd chance for life to have developed. What would this be like? Again we have many different worlds although these are skipped through a little better than the Maggie Kaufmann Long Earth voyage and seem a little less repetitive - or where there is repetition it is more interesting than mundane.
Overall this is a good read in the series, probably a little better than The Long War but again lacking the coherence and sheer enthusiasm of The Long Earth (perhaps inevitably). As a work of science fiction it works well - the broad brush 'imaginary worlds' of the Long Earth and the Long Mars juxtaposed by the more existential investigation into human evolution.
Would I read a fourth installment? Undoubtedly, there are stories yet to be told. Would I recommend this book? Only if the recommendee had enjoyed the previous two books.
My Pet House Decorating Game.s: Animal Home Design
Lifestyle and Games
App
▶▶▶ Decorate your house for animals and play with your favorite “virtual pets”. ▶▶▶...
Nail Art Beauty Makeover Salon: Fashion Manicure Designs and Decoration Ideas for Girls
Lifestyle and Games
App
*** Create fabulous princess gel nails in the top trending virtual nail salon! *** Perform...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
The Escape Manifesto: Quit Your Corporate Job - Do Something Different!
Book
Rob, Dom and Mikey were fed up with the corporate treadmill. When they decided to change careers,...