Search
Search results
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Canadian author Susin Nielsen continues to entertain children with her latest novel<i> Word Nerd</i>. Similarly with characters from previous novels, the pre-teen Ambrose is a bit of a misfit. With a deathly peanut allergy and an over protective parent who travels from job to job, Ambrose never manages to make any friends. Now settled in Vancouver, Ambrose is the happiest he has ever been. He is homeschooled away from all the bullies, has made a friend and found a passion in Scrabble. However, he has to keep all of this secret from his mother.
Ambrose is a funny, intelligent narrator who draws the reader in from the very first line: “The day I almost died…” Like many children who do not fit in with peers at school, Ambrose’s passions lie within less conventional past times, i.e. playing Scrabble. Able to quickly pull out several words from a jumble of letters – emphasized by the anagram chapter headings – he is overjoyed to learn of a nearby Scrabble club and knows just the person to accompany him.
Cosmo is a character that younger readers may struggle to come to terms with. An ex-convict and recovering drug addict, Cosmo also enjoys playing Scrabble and is persuaded by his annoying neighbour – Ambrose – to go to the club. An unconventional friendship sparks between the two of them, both unintentionally helping the other out. Cosmo encourages Ambrose to stand up to the bullies, whereas having a child around keeps Cosmo away from the things that resulted in a prison sentence. Despite the positives in this relationship, Ambrose’s mother believes Cosmo to be completely untrustworthy.
Although Ambrose and Cosmo are the main characters in <i>Word Nerd</i>, Ambrose’s mother maintains an important role. Having lost her husband suddenly and unexpectedly, she must have been terrified to learn of Ambrose’s peanut allergy. In order to prevent her son from leaving her as well, she has become overprotective and controlling, denying Ambrose the right to live his own life.
Some readers may have experienced similar situations either at school or with their parents. Word Nerd, whilst being a form of entertainment, explains the potential reasons behind these scenarios, helping children to understand what may be occurring in their lives. It also highlights the dangers of drug addictions and crime, but also suggests that people can change their ways.
<i>Word Nerd</i>, whilst voiced by a twelve year old, is more appropriate for readers in their teens. Ambrose is very mature at such a young age, and the book contains subjects of drugs and violence as well as mild sexual references. What Susin Nielsen has produced is an amusing story with a powerful message. Both entertaining and insightful, <i>Word Nerd</i> is perhaps Nielsen’s best novel yet.
Canadian author Susin Nielsen continues to entertain children with her latest novel<i> Word Nerd</i>. Similarly with characters from previous novels, the pre-teen Ambrose is a bit of a misfit. With a deathly peanut allergy and an over protective parent who travels from job to job, Ambrose never manages to make any friends. Now settled in Vancouver, Ambrose is the happiest he has ever been. He is homeschooled away from all the bullies, has made a friend and found a passion in Scrabble. However, he has to keep all of this secret from his mother.
Ambrose is a funny, intelligent narrator who draws the reader in from the very first line: “The day I almost died…” Like many children who do not fit in with peers at school, Ambrose’s passions lie within less conventional past times, i.e. playing Scrabble. Able to quickly pull out several words from a jumble of letters – emphasized by the anagram chapter headings – he is overjoyed to learn of a nearby Scrabble club and knows just the person to accompany him.
Cosmo is a character that younger readers may struggle to come to terms with. An ex-convict and recovering drug addict, Cosmo also enjoys playing Scrabble and is persuaded by his annoying neighbour – Ambrose – to go to the club. An unconventional friendship sparks between the two of them, both unintentionally helping the other out. Cosmo encourages Ambrose to stand up to the bullies, whereas having a child around keeps Cosmo away from the things that resulted in a prison sentence. Despite the positives in this relationship, Ambrose’s mother believes Cosmo to be completely untrustworthy.
Although Ambrose and Cosmo are the main characters in <i>Word Nerd</i>, Ambrose’s mother maintains an important role. Having lost her husband suddenly and unexpectedly, she must have been terrified to learn of Ambrose’s peanut allergy. In order to prevent her son from leaving her as well, she has become overprotective and controlling, denying Ambrose the right to live his own life.
Some readers may have experienced similar situations either at school or with their parents. Word Nerd, whilst being a form of entertainment, explains the potential reasons behind these scenarios, helping children to understand what may be occurring in their lives. It also highlights the dangers of drug addictions and crime, but also suggests that people can change their ways.
<i>Word Nerd</i>, whilst voiced by a twelve year old, is more appropriate for readers in their teens. Ambrose is very mature at such a young age, and the book contains subjects of drugs and violence as well as mild sexual references. What Susin Nielsen has produced is an amusing story with a powerful message. Both entertaining and insightful, <i>Word Nerd</i> is perhaps Nielsen’s best novel yet.
Crowntakers - The Ultimate Strategy RPG
Games
App
Dark times are imminent: the king’s abduction throws a once peaceful land into turmoil. Being the...
The World Ends with You: Solo Remix for iPad
Games
App
SUPPORTED DEVICES iOS 5.1.1 or later is required. Square Enix’s fresh-faced hit The New York...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Michael Myers has returned, again! But this time it’s personal. Halloween II is the brainchild of Rob Zombie who directed the remake of the 1978 John Carpenter original.
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Creed (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for Adonis Johnson (Michael B Jordan) has always been a struggle. He has moved from one facility to another under the care the state constantly fighting for his place in society. When he is adopted by Mary Anne Creed (Phylicia Rashad), he learns that his father was actually legendary fighter Apollo Creed who had a dalliance with his mother and died before Adonis was born. Flash forward year’s later, despite a life of privilege and a good job, Adonis yearns to be a boxer and follow in his father’s footsteps. Unable to secure fights, he travels across the border to fight on the circuit in Mexico where he is undefeated. When able to quench his conflicting emotions, Adonis moves to Philadelphia to live a simpler life. He hopes to take pointers from his father’s chief rival and longtime friend Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), but is at first hesitant to reveal his true connection to Creed. This is the promise of the new film “Creed”, which is a very worthy and in joy of all entry into the popular “Rocky” series. In older, more cautious and world beaten Balboa is hesitant to go back into the world that made him a household name, but eventually is determined to train the young boxer and in doing so both of them learn what it is to be a champion in and out of the ring.
There is the uplifting training and human stories that made the series so popular but what really keeps this from being a retread is the solid work of Jordan and Stallone. Jordan is very much his own character and not trying to copy his father. He is headstrong, impulsive, quick to anger, but also willing to listen to the wisdom of Rocky. Stallone does perhaps his best work in a very long time in a supporting role by playing a more vulnerable and wise character that is not afraid to show his humanity. This is a very welcome change for the actor who is best known as larger-than-life and unstoppable in many of the roles that he portrays. I know it would be considered a long shot but this is the type of performance that veteran actors get award nominations for in a supporting role.
Of course Johnson is leading up to his big fight with destiny that will either make or break him against an overwhelmingly unstoppable opponent but the well-choreographed and paste fight sequences will have you on the edge of your seat and captivated much like the best sequences from the earlier Rocky films.
This was a very solid and entertaining film that should delight fans of the series as well as sports films in general and was one of the most enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/23/creed/
There is the uplifting training and human stories that made the series so popular but what really keeps this from being a retread is the solid work of Jordan and Stallone. Jordan is very much his own character and not trying to copy his father. He is headstrong, impulsive, quick to anger, but also willing to listen to the wisdom of Rocky. Stallone does perhaps his best work in a very long time in a supporting role by playing a more vulnerable and wise character that is not afraid to show his humanity. This is a very welcome change for the actor who is best known as larger-than-life and unstoppable in many of the roles that he portrays. I know it would be considered a long shot but this is the type of performance that veteran actors get award nominations for in a supporting role.
Of course Johnson is leading up to his big fight with destiny that will either make or break him against an overwhelmingly unstoppable opponent but the well-choreographed and paste fight sequences will have you on the edge of your seat and captivated much like the best sequences from the earlier Rocky films.
This was a very solid and entertaining film that should delight fans of the series as well as sports films in general and was one of the most enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/23/creed/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Alone For Christmas (2013) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
UK DVD release title, Bone Alone.
Shopping in Tesco each week involves a traditional visit to the DVD aisle to look for bargains and new releases. At this time of year that also means some quality seasonal content that you've never heard of before... and so I give you, Bone Alone!
When Bone gets in trouble for the antics of his little brother Columbus he's banished to a dogsitter as the family go off for the holidays.
Bone, with the help of the other dogs, makes an escape after he realises his home is in danger. A group of burglars have their sights set on their valuables, but this is Bone's house and he has to defend it.
Its original title was Alone For Christmas, let's face it though, that's just not as good as Bone Alone. Is it a rip off of Home Alone featuring dogs or is it porn... who knows?!
The first thing you will notice about Bone Alone is the absolutely ridiculous effects used to animate the dog's mouths, it's truly awful, but thankfully it's easily forgotten once you get into it because... dare I say it? This film is pretty entertaining.
Add some dogs to a film and you've got me keen, get those dogs to execute a Home Alone plan on some unscrupulous baddies? Sold! Bone does not let his lack of opposable thumbs stop him making his house a fortress that even Kevin would be proud of. Honestly, I don't know how he thought of some of them, I'll be adding them to my own battle plan options shortly.
We've obviously got quality acting from the canine contingent, especially from our lead actors, Hooligan and Torpedo playing Bone and Columbus. Plus there are lots of little cameos from other floofy talents.
The human cast is classic TV movie, acting that's just cheesy enough that the film appears to not take itself too seriously. It's headed up by one of TV's favourite dads, David DeLuise, and as always he's the right sort of amusing to make the role work. The villains have your favourite traits but out of the three of them my favourite was definitely Phil played by John Kenward, he's the adorable buffoon that you really kind of feel for in the whole thing.
Generally the cast isn't made up of people you'd recognise, but then you spot Kevin Sorbo... I don't know what he's channelling when it comes to this role but it's not entirely good. There's a whole section of his story that I zoned out of, that was probably the only part of this masterpiece that I didn't get along with.
Bone Alone is a really fun film because it's equal parts ridiculous and amusing. I can't say there's much in it that's going to make cinematic history but I liked it and that's really all that matters.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/bone-alone-movie-review.html
When Bone gets in trouble for the antics of his little brother Columbus he's banished to a dogsitter as the family go off for the holidays.
Bone, with the help of the other dogs, makes an escape after he realises his home is in danger. A group of burglars have their sights set on their valuables, but this is Bone's house and he has to defend it.
Its original title was Alone For Christmas, let's face it though, that's just not as good as Bone Alone. Is it a rip off of Home Alone featuring dogs or is it porn... who knows?!
The first thing you will notice about Bone Alone is the absolutely ridiculous effects used to animate the dog's mouths, it's truly awful, but thankfully it's easily forgotten once you get into it because... dare I say it? This film is pretty entertaining.
Add some dogs to a film and you've got me keen, get those dogs to execute a Home Alone plan on some unscrupulous baddies? Sold! Bone does not let his lack of opposable thumbs stop him making his house a fortress that even Kevin would be proud of. Honestly, I don't know how he thought of some of them, I'll be adding them to my own battle plan options shortly.
We've obviously got quality acting from the canine contingent, especially from our lead actors, Hooligan and Torpedo playing Bone and Columbus. Plus there are lots of little cameos from other floofy talents.
The human cast is classic TV movie, acting that's just cheesy enough that the film appears to not take itself too seriously. It's headed up by one of TV's favourite dads, David DeLuise, and as always he's the right sort of amusing to make the role work. The villains have your favourite traits but out of the three of them my favourite was definitely Phil played by John Kenward, he's the adorable buffoon that you really kind of feel for in the whole thing.
Generally the cast isn't made up of people you'd recognise, but then you spot Kevin Sorbo... I don't know what he's channelling when it comes to this role but it's not entirely good. There's a whole section of his story that I zoned out of, that was probably the only part of this masterpiece that I didn't get along with.
Bone Alone is a really fun film because it's equal parts ridiculous and amusing. I can't say there's much in it that's going to make cinematic history but I liked it and that's really all that matters.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/bone-alone-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Heat (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a fun twist to the traditional buddy-cop movie theme, this time we have a pair of ladies bringing The Heat to the streets of Boston for a laugh-out-loud good time.
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy bring action and some very sharp tongues to the big screen.
The story starts out by painting a picture of the two in their separate worlds. Special Agent Ashburn (Bullock) is very prim, proper, and by-the-book. She dresses for success, knows it all, and doesn’t let so much as an S-bomb pass her lips. As she solves a case (proving herself a know-it-all in front of coworkers), a bleak picture comes into focus that this very uptight FBI agent is just the beginning.
By contrast (and fitting the expected formula), Detective Mullins (McCarthy) uses a down-and-dirty, physical, and foul-mouthed method for cleaning up the streets of Boston. Her neighborhood is definitely her home, and it needs protecting. Mullins’ slovenly lifestyle is the complete polar opposite of Ashburn, as one might expect. This conflict is the driving force behind a typical buddy cop movie. The only difference is that it’s two women instead of the usual ingredients.
Ashburn is given an assignment in Boston. The assignment will be a key, deciding factor in her next promotion, so all she wants is a simple case to solve and close. Naturally, once Mullins and Ashburn meet, sparks fly and hilarity ensues.
I went into this with low expectations, but also a deep loathing for Sandra Bullock as an actress — every role she’s ever played has been essentially the same. I expected the same in The Heat. In an oh-so-surprising twist of fate, she ended up playing the sober, strait-laced character! Despite my lack of appreciation for her acting skills, I must say she did well; her comedic timing was spot-on, and it meshed well with McCarthy’s usual brand of comedy: vociferous and physical, bordering on slapstick. I did note during the film that Bullock is definitely starting to show her age; this is not a knock on her beauty, but more an admission that I am starting to feel old!
Mullins also plays the same character in every movie role she takes, so this character was no stretch for her at all. It seems she is just there to memorize lines and provide her unabashed, high-energy quips. That said, I have to give her mad props for comedic timing and delivery. She is a one-trick-pony, but that one trick is a damn good one.
All in all, this is a great film for laughs. I laughed out loud through much of it, which was a surprise. As with all comedies, I don’t recommend spending your hard-earned cash on these top-dollar theater tickets. Wait for the small screen, but definitely see it for a good, healthy chuckle.
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy bring action and some very sharp tongues to the big screen.
The story starts out by painting a picture of the two in their separate worlds. Special Agent Ashburn (Bullock) is very prim, proper, and by-the-book. She dresses for success, knows it all, and doesn’t let so much as an S-bomb pass her lips. As she solves a case (proving herself a know-it-all in front of coworkers), a bleak picture comes into focus that this very uptight FBI agent is just the beginning.
By contrast (and fitting the expected formula), Detective Mullins (McCarthy) uses a down-and-dirty, physical, and foul-mouthed method for cleaning up the streets of Boston. Her neighborhood is definitely her home, and it needs protecting. Mullins’ slovenly lifestyle is the complete polar opposite of Ashburn, as one might expect. This conflict is the driving force behind a typical buddy cop movie. The only difference is that it’s two women instead of the usual ingredients.
Ashburn is given an assignment in Boston. The assignment will be a key, deciding factor in her next promotion, so all she wants is a simple case to solve and close. Naturally, once Mullins and Ashburn meet, sparks fly and hilarity ensues.
I went into this with low expectations, but also a deep loathing for Sandra Bullock as an actress — every role she’s ever played has been essentially the same. I expected the same in The Heat. In an oh-so-surprising twist of fate, she ended up playing the sober, strait-laced character! Despite my lack of appreciation for her acting skills, I must say she did well; her comedic timing was spot-on, and it meshed well with McCarthy’s usual brand of comedy: vociferous and physical, bordering on slapstick. I did note during the film that Bullock is definitely starting to show her age; this is not a knock on her beauty, but more an admission that I am starting to feel old!
Mullins also plays the same character in every movie role she takes, so this character was no stretch for her at all. It seems she is just there to memorize lines and provide her unabashed, high-energy quips. That said, I have to give her mad props for comedic timing and delivery. She is a one-trick-pony, but that one trick is a damn good one.
All in all, this is a great film for laughs. I laughed out loud through much of it, which was a surprise. As with all comedies, I don’t recommend spending your hard-earned cash on these top-dollar theater tickets. Wait for the small screen, but definitely see it for a good, healthy chuckle.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Father Stu (2022) in Movies
Sep 25, 2022
One Note Performance In The Lead Sinks Film
When one creates a film that is based on the real life exploits of a person, the Writer/Director of the film will be sorely tempted to include that character in every scene. Which is fine if that character is written in an interesting enough way to keep our attention. When it is NOT written well, then the film is poorer because of it.
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bad Samaritan (2018) in Movies
Oct 3, 2018 (Updated Oct 3, 2018)
Tacky jump-scares (1 more)
Constantly asks you to accept huge leaps of logic
What A Waste
Bad Samaritan is a movie that I really should have liked. I am a huge fan of David Tennant, I love a decent thriller movie and the trailer for the movie teased an intriguing plot as well. Unfortunately, I didn't like much of it, in fact it really annoyed me how little I liked when watching this thing.
Let's start off with the cast. David Tennant is, - as he always is, - absolutely fantastic in this role. In any other better movie, he would be in with a shout for an award for this role, unfortunately he is surrounded by absolutely overwhelming amount of trash. Robert Sheehan does a serviceable job with what he has given, but some of the lines he delivers are just too forced and cheesy to be taken seriously. The actor playing his best friend is just playing a stereotypical nonchalant small time criminal. Kerry Condon plays the hostage that David Tennant is keeping in his house and she also does a decent enough job with the shoddy material she has been given to work with.
The only other positive that I can think of other than Tennant's performance, is the way that Tennant's character systematically ruins Sheehan's character's life. He makes him lose his job, he blackmails him via social media, he attacks his girlfriend and he wrecks his car. The way that this sequence played out reminded me of Frank Miller's Daredevil story Born Again, where Kingpin learns Daredevil's real identity and destroys his life piece by piece via the people he cares about. Don't get me wrong, it is done far better in Born Again and Born Again is a much better story overall than Bad Samaritan, but it was the only element of this movies plot that I liked other than what we already saw in the trailers.
Now that we have discussed the few positives that this movie has, let's go through everything else. First of all, I have never heard a more out-of-place, inappropriate score to go along with what is happening onscreen. It genuinely felt like a temp score that was put in preliminarily until the proper one was put in and then they just left it in and didn't bother going back to improve it.
Then there was the cheap jump-scares, Although they are mostly consigned to the first act in the movie, they are still far too frequent and totally unnecessary. The last one that I remember happening was so egregious, (when David Tennant was standing behind the detective outside the house,) it actually bordered on parody. There was no story justification for it whatsoever, why would this guy who is trying to appear normal and as if nothing is wrong, creep up behind a detective who is investigating him and just stand there like a creep to give him a fright? It makes absolutely no sense. To be honest, the movie is abundant with things that don't make any sense and you are almost constantly asked to make huge leaps of logic when watching it.
There's also the fact that this movie has no idea what it wants to be. Dean Devlin who directed this, also directed last year's Geostorm. Now Geostorm was a steaming pile of shit, but at least it knew what it wanted to be. The tone in Bad Samaritan is totally all over the place and doesn't work in any way or flow well at all. This movie also plays like a check-list of thriller movie clichés. Everything from cheesy flashbacks showing the villains messed up past to the detectives not believing the protagonist's claims even when he has photo evidence on his phone.
Overall, this film is a huge waste. David Tennant's fantastic performance that he puts in here as an unhinged, genuinely scary villain is wasted in this trash movie. The trailers showed us a potentially thrilling plot that could have really been exciting and engaging only to totally waste it on a flick full of mediocre production elements and a half baked storyline. The only reason that this scored 4 was because of Tennant's brilliant performance, if not for that, this movie would have scored a 2 at best.
Let's start off with the cast. David Tennant is, - as he always is, - absolutely fantastic in this role. In any other better movie, he would be in with a shout for an award for this role, unfortunately he is surrounded by absolutely overwhelming amount of trash. Robert Sheehan does a serviceable job with what he has given, but some of the lines he delivers are just too forced and cheesy to be taken seriously. The actor playing his best friend is just playing a stereotypical nonchalant small time criminal. Kerry Condon plays the hostage that David Tennant is keeping in his house and she also does a decent enough job with the shoddy material she has been given to work with.
The only other positive that I can think of other than Tennant's performance, is the way that Tennant's character systematically ruins Sheehan's character's life. He makes him lose his job, he blackmails him via social media, he attacks his girlfriend and he wrecks his car. The way that this sequence played out reminded me of Frank Miller's Daredevil story Born Again, where Kingpin learns Daredevil's real identity and destroys his life piece by piece via the people he cares about. Don't get me wrong, it is done far better in Born Again and Born Again is a much better story overall than Bad Samaritan, but it was the only element of this movies plot that I liked other than what we already saw in the trailers.
Now that we have discussed the few positives that this movie has, let's go through everything else. First of all, I have never heard a more out-of-place, inappropriate score to go along with what is happening onscreen. It genuinely felt like a temp score that was put in preliminarily until the proper one was put in and then they just left it in and didn't bother going back to improve it.
Then there was the cheap jump-scares, Although they are mostly consigned to the first act in the movie, they are still far too frequent and totally unnecessary. The last one that I remember happening was so egregious, (when David Tennant was standing behind the detective outside the house,) it actually bordered on parody. There was no story justification for it whatsoever, why would this guy who is trying to appear normal and as if nothing is wrong, creep up behind a detective who is investigating him and just stand there like a creep to give him a fright? It makes absolutely no sense. To be honest, the movie is abundant with things that don't make any sense and you are almost constantly asked to make huge leaps of logic when watching it.
There's also the fact that this movie has no idea what it wants to be. Dean Devlin who directed this, also directed last year's Geostorm. Now Geostorm was a steaming pile of shit, but at least it knew what it wanted to be. The tone in Bad Samaritan is totally all over the place and doesn't work in any way or flow well at all. This movie also plays like a check-list of thriller movie clichés. Everything from cheesy flashbacks showing the villains messed up past to the detectives not believing the protagonist's claims even when he has photo evidence on his phone.
Overall, this film is a huge waste. David Tennant's fantastic performance that he puts in here as an unhinged, genuinely scary villain is wasted in this trash movie. The trailers showed us a potentially thrilling plot that could have really been exciting and engaging only to totally waste it on a flick full of mediocre production elements and a half baked storyline. The only reason that this scored 4 was because of Tennant's brilliant performance, if not for that, this movie would have scored a 2 at best.