Search
Search results
At Swim Two Birds
Book
Flann O'Brien's innovative metafictional work, whose unruly characters strike out their own paths in...
The Oracle Year
7.0
Rate It
Book
Knowledge is power. So when an unassuming Manhattan bassist named Will Dando awakens from a dream...
Hounds of the Hollywood Baskervilles (Babs Norman Hollywood Mystery #1)
Book
Asta, the dog from the popular Thin Man series, has vanished, and production for his next film is...
Humour Mystery Historical
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 16, 2020 (Updated Jan 16, 2020)
Cutting satire (1 more)
Great ensemble cast
Don't be stupid, be a smarty
Taika Waititi's much discussed movie is an odd beast. Set in a small German town towards the end of the war, Jojo (Roman Griffith Davis), is a young boy indoctrinated with Nazi fervour as a member of the Hitler youth. Together with his rotund and bespectacled friend Yorki (Archie Yates), they are not likely to spread fear into the approaching Allied forces: they are a pair that would be likely to get picked last for 'sides' in a school football match.
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The People at Number 9 in Books
Mar 15, 2018
From this synopsis of this book, you imagine this is going to be a bit dark and a bit twisty, but its not. Its simply a domestic thriller about people with a lot of money and connections in high up places flirting, changing life paths and having resentments. I understand that this was a novel about middle-class suburban life, which can be dull, but why did nothing happen? <i>But those changes will come at a price."</i> Im sorry, but I must have missed something
What changes? What price?
I didnt like the way this was set out, and maybe thats because it was an ARC copy, but this was really choppy and changey, with no indication that a longish time period (a few hours to a whole afternoon) had passed. The writing was fine, I have no faults with that, but it wasnt anything special.
There are four main characters in this book. Sara and Neil and Lou and Gavin. While each of the characters were well developed and in depth, it didnt stop them from being lacklustre and 2D. I couldnt connect with any of them on a personal level. Even though I would get annoyed at certain things Lou said or did, I wasnt getting annoyed on Saras behalf, because I thought Sara was whiny and she got on my nerves too.
One of my issues with this book, other than it being boring as heck, was the pretentious conversations going on, all the time. I know this book was a satire piece on the middle class, I get it, but dont bore us to death with long conversations that are eye rollingly posh and uninteresting. You can create a satire piece without making your readers fall asleep. There is very little description in this book, youll find that 80% of all the writing is speech, so it really did my head in after a while.
Now, this point is completely down to personal preference, but another reason I couldnt get on with this book was because of all the out-of-marriage flirting. It makes me really uncomfortable and squirmy reading that kind of stuff, so, since it was heavily featured in this, I disliked the book even more.
This is going to be a controversial book in terms of opinions, most definitely, and it would probably be a great book to read for a discussion, because youd have lots of differing opinions on the characters, but, heres my two-cents:
Ultimately, this novel is a story about over indulged middle class suburban families doing things a little bit risky like sex in a tent or smoking weed, and worrying about things only unrealistic well-off people could worry about, like home-schooling and arts and crafts. Not worth the time it takes to read.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and HQ for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
I didnt like the way this was set out, and maybe thats because it was an ARC copy, but this was really choppy and changey, with no indication that a longish time period (a few hours to a whole afternoon) had passed. The writing was fine, I have no faults with that, but it wasnt anything special.
There are four main characters in this book. Sara and Neil and Lou and Gavin. While each of the characters were well developed and in depth, it didnt stop them from being lacklustre and 2D. I couldnt connect with any of them on a personal level. Even though I would get annoyed at certain things Lou said or did, I wasnt getting annoyed on Saras behalf, because I thought Sara was whiny and she got on my nerves too.
One of my issues with this book, other than it being boring as heck, was the pretentious conversations going on, all the time. I know this book was a satire piece on the middle class, I get it, but dont bore us to death with long conversations that are eye rollingly posh and uninteresting. You can create a satire piece without making your readers fall asleep. There is very little description in this book, youll find that 80% of all the writing is speech, so it really did my head in after a while.
Now, this point is completely down to personal preference, but another reason I couldnt get on with this book was because of all the out-of-marriage flirting. It makes me really uncomfortable and squirmy reading that kind of stuff, so, since it was heavily featured in this, I disliked the book even more.
This is going to be a controversial book in terms of opinions, most definitely, and it would probably be a great book to read for a discussion, because youd have lots of differing opinions on the characters, but, heres my two-cents:
Ultimately, this novel is a story about over indulged middle class suburban families doing things a little bit risky like sex in a tent or smoking weed, and worrying about things only unrealistic well-off people could worry about, like home-schooling and arts and crafts. Not worth the time it takes to read.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and HQ for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Lou Grande (148 KP) rated Sorry to Bother You (2018) in Movies
Jul 17, 2018
This movie was funny, poignant, and sure did take a turn in the third act. The world that Cassius Green ("cash is green") lives in is a not-quite bizarro version of our own world--take all the issues the United States is having and turn them to 11 and you'll understand. It reminded me a bit of Idiocracy in that way. But I digress. Cassius Green just wants stability. He wants to make money to eventually move out of his uncle's (Terry Crews) garage, and he wants to impress his girlfriend, Detroit (Tessa Thompson). He finds a job working as a telemarketer, and, what's more, he finds success by adopting a "white voice," voiced by David Cross. He soon faces a moral crisis when he finds out what he's actually selling, and who he's selling out.
Brilliantly shot and directed, Sorry to Bother You is a delight to watch. Every actor is on point, and the comedic timing never skips a beat. But it's not without a message, and it won't be hard to decipher. Sorry to Bother You is a satire in the purest of forms--and what is being satirized is us. After it's over, it invites you to take a moment to reflect on your own life, and what part you play in the world. Excellent, relevant film. Highly recommend.
(Also, I have to add that I saw this at a weekday afternoon matinee, and the audience was full of old white people. They looked less than pleased as we were walking out. What did you think this was??)
Brilliantly shot and directed, Sorry to Bother You is a delight to watch. Every actor is on point, and the comedic timing never skips a beat. But it's not without a message, and it won't be hard to decipher. Sorry to Bother You is a satire in the purest of forms--and what is being satirized is us. After it's over, it invites you to take a moment to reflect on your own life, and what part you play in the world. Excellent, relevant film. Highly recommend.
(Also, I have to add that I saw this at a weekday afternoon matinee, and the audience was full of old white people. They looked less than pleased as we were walking out. What did you think this was??)
I tried. I really did. It sounded like a story that I was going to like, plus, it's a very short novel. Vigilance is about a reality TV show that puts active shooters in randomly selected places while the violence and drama plays out on national TV. The premise being that America should constantly stay vigilant against foreign and domestic threats of any kind. However, for a 190 page book, the actual TV show hadn't even been set up with a chosen shooter "cast" yet by the 50th or so page. Up until that point, it was just the executive producer, preparing to launch the episode in one way or another. At some point, he is supposed to get wound up in the action, or at least some sort of trouble, according to the blurb on the back of the book. However, at that point, the rest of the book gives little to no time to make for a good, descriptive story, so I can't imagine that it could blow my mind by the end. Most of what I've read is part satire, part almost lecture about gun-control and how owning doesn't equal trained to use properly, disguised as some of the characters' backstories. I truly looked forward to reading this book, but have decided to quit. There are way too many books out there to be read to spend time on a bad one. I think the premise was good, and the story had the potential of being really interesting. This one, however, just seems to have missed its mark. Pass.
ClareR (5726 KP) rated Always Greener in Books
Feb 27, 2020 (Updated Feb 27, 2020)
Always Greener is about a reality TV show in the near future, where everyone is permanently glued to their screens through visual implants or AR glasses (if they haven't got the money). How bad is your life? Because if it's REALLY bad, you're more likely to become a contestant on The Grass is Greener, where you'll be watched 24/7 through your visual implants. There's no off switch, there's no privacy - the public want to see everything.
The first couple of chapters were a little hard-going, but I'm glad I persevered. It's a satire of the reality TV that we have today, and J. R. H. Lawless has taken it to it's furthest point, it's most outrageous end. To be fair, I'm sure it could probably be even more heartless, invasive and damaging, but the contestants are saved, to a certain extent, by a host with a conscience.
I did really enjoy this - but I can't say as it made me feel particularly positive about the future: people used as guinea pigs for drugs and procedures untested on anyone else, with fatal consequences; suicide so commonplace, that it has become a steady job for a group of people who clean up after them - what a way to make a living; the total lack of empathy for people who are less fortunate, reduced merely to a prime-time, all-the-time, streaming slot.
Not a future I would want, but a great book, nonetheless. Its a good read!
Many thanks to NetGalley for my copy of this book to read and review.
The first couple of chapters were a little hard-going, but I'm glad I persevered. It's a satire of the reality TV that we have today, and J. R. H. Lawless has taken it to it's furthest point, it's most outrageous end. To be fair, I'm sure it could probably be even more heartless, invasive and damaging, but the contestants are saved, to a certain extent, by a host with a conscience.
I did really enjoy this - but I can't say as it made me feel particularly positive about the future: people used as guinea pigs for drugs and procedures untested on anyone else, with fatal consequences; suicide so commonplace, that it has become a steady job for a group of people who clean up after them - what a way to make a living; the total lack of empathy for people who are less fortunate, reduced merely to a prime-time, all-the-time, streaming slot.
Not a future I would want, but a great book, nonetheless. Its a good read!
Many thanks to NetGalley for my copy of this book to read and review.
Do Zombies Dream of Undead Sheep?: A Neuroscientific View of the Zombie Brain
Timothy Verstynen and Bradley Voytek
9.0
Rate It
Book
Even if you've never seen a zombie movie or television show, you could identify an undead ghoul if...